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.

[Quix]

Amen. Quite so. Thx.

[Scotswife]

"Many IDists and creationists tend to assume that being in the minority is sufficient evidence of their hypotheses being correct. I just wanted to state that the brilliant scientists on the ID side of the argument are in opposition to the majority, and just as brilliant, scientists on the evolution side."

I really don't have any way of knowing what IDists or creatonists think about being in a minority.
I'm just making the point that sometimes the majority has been found to be wrong - so being in the majority doesn't necessarily make a person right.

"IDists are attempting to circumvent that methodology and wedge their hypotheses into society without developing, testing and attempting to falsify those hypotheses and without publishing their findings in a forum where it can be discussed and reviewed by others trained in the appropriate fields."

Ok...I wouldn't know much about this either.
And how about this scientist...do you place him in that category?

"So far, the work presented by the DI (and other houses of ID) have failed to pass peer review."

What would you say would be the major reason for failing pass the muster?

"The attempt of IDists and creationists to remove or inhibit the teaching of evolution in schools, or to give ID equal billing is a different but related situation.

Those attempting to remove/inhibit evolution are using ID as a tool to cast doubt on the veracity of the SToE. This has nothing to do with the scientific merits of ID but has everything to do with its use as an anti-evolution crowbar."

I personally am not one of those who would oppose evolution in the classroom. However...as I look back at some of my own experiences in science classes taught by atheist teachers it does irk me that they gave us the impression evolution explains the origin of life.
They were wrong about that...and I think that sort of thing can create resentment towards evolution.

"Just to repeat myself; until those hypotheses have shown they can stand on their own, survive criticism and are consequently considered valid, they will not be appropriate to be taught in science class."

OK...fair enough.
Do you think the fact that God enters into their equation makes it more difficult for them? Are the odds stacked against them because of this?

[Scotswife]

" If science WAS biased against, or atagonistic towards, the faithful (and there are plenty of first-hand accounts to the contrary on this thread alone), I'm sure there would be far less scientists-of-faith than there are."

Are there any stats that have attempted to break it down?
Atheists/deists/theists according to various scientific fields? Just curious.

"For what it's worth, I hope you stick around and observe the discussions on these threads with an objective eye. Yes, tempers sometimes flare, but you can get some very useful information, from both sides, that might clarify your belief."

Thank you for the kind words.
It's hard to get a good grasp on what's going on without doing an incredible amount of reading. Raising a large family prevents that from happening.
But maybe I will just see if I can absorb a small amount of useful info :)

[Scotswife]

"Those that practice 'Religious Science' are more interested in changing the evidence to fit a preconceived idea of what is necessary to support their hypothesis than in correcting their hypothesis to reflect the evidence."

Yes...I did notice that.

"In contrast, those scientists who are religious but are careful to separate their beliefs from their work and follow current scientific methodology are true scientists that contribute much to our understanding of the natural world."

That's good to hear.
I was thinking about an earlier post where someone mentioned Newton's faith in God.
You don't see many threads here lambasting Newton because he felt his discovery gave him insight into the mind of God. People just don't argue over gravity even though no one is quite sure how it works.

"It is true that the percentage of atheists and agnostics is higher in science than in general society but their numbers are still in the minority."

This is actually new to me. I was given the impression faith in God was looked down upon.

[Scotswife]

Thanks for the quote.

[presently no screen name]

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.

He only came to the "revelation" that the choice to believe is actually the most rational conclusion when you look at the evidence around you - one year later at 28. That does not mean that he became a Christian then. He merely decided to accept the choice to believe it is more rational.

Some people think if you believe there is a God, or you believe in God - that makes you a Christian. Like you state, his conversion, more likely, was recent but not at 28.

[Cavuoto]

Hindu. think Hindu.

Why get stuck in the creator and the creation model? Why not the creator is the creation model?

Works out nicely, integrated, mechanical and creative, material and energetic, all at the same time.

[VadeRetro]

Good! Now that you've fed him a silly talking point to wave around rather than face the facts, maybe he can come out of hiding?

You guys take the cake.

[presently no screen name]

rather than face the facts, maybe he can come out of hiding?



Whose facts? And why do you assume that anyone is hiding? BTW, why was the other thread pulled?

[VadeRetro]

Forgot to mention that that's a 1998 interview. If he converted the day before the interview and he's waiting for the jackboots at the door, he's already been waiting eight years. But RWP has known him since 94 and he was already an overt believer then.

Perhaps you haven't noticed that he's a theistic evolutionist, the same as Junior, Physicist, Lurking Lib, NakatuX ... I forgot who and how many. A substantial chunk of the evo crew.

Whose facts? And why do you assume that anyone is hiding?

I refer to the practice of trapping oneself with one's own snarly evasions and misrepresentations, then pretending to squeeze out through the pores. The Crusader obviously isn't man enough to own up, period.

In my voluminous posts of the last 8 years, I have had to eat the crow while it's warm many, many times. It isn't easy to do in argument with your lot because one knows the catcalls and hoots will wake the dead. Still, if you're going to stay right, you have to be able to be wrong. If you can't be wrong, you have to marry your bad hunches, mistakes, confabulations, confusions, and so forth forever. Far too many of you guys do that. Evidently, you're already pretty accustomed to not having the solid ground of research, fact, and evidence under your feet.

BTW, why was the other thread pulled?

An old-timer creationist who would otherwise be nearly untouchable has lately developed a taste for personal slander. For now, at least, he can kill threads by violating FR guidelines thereon.

[VadeRetro]

Didn't check the latest. As of this morning, slanderer and slanderee appear to have been banned.

[VadeRetro]

Needless to say, if true, that crap dog Agamemnon can count himself a successful suicide bomber, taking out RWP.

[presently no screen name]

he can kill threads by violating FR guidelines thereon.


Not sure how it all works - but couldn't the poster been banned and pull his post and not kill the thread?

[VadeRetro]

That would be the normal thing. Don't know why it didn't happen.

[presently no screen name]

Forgot to mention that that's a 1998 interview


Well, then it wasn't recent as I though nor did I know about pre 1994.

True Christianity means to follow Christ; not just believing there is a God - even satan knows that! I believe that is why there is so much confusion.

To each his own. Life is too short to constantly banter because when all is said and done; one day, we 'alone' will face The Almighty. We are accountable for ourself and not what the other person did, said or believed. At times, I remind myself of that; other times, I banter. Hopefully soon, I'll just let it be.

[b_sharp]

"I really don't have any way of knowing what IDists or creatonists think about being in a minority.
"I'm just making the point that sometimes the majority has been found to be wrong - so being in the majority doesn't necessarily make a person right."

I can't argue with that, historically being in the majority is no guarantee, but I can modify it. Because of the way science works, being in the majority dramatically increases the probability that you are correct.

"Ok...I wouldn't know much about this either. And how about this scientist...do you place him in that category?

Not at all, Collins has been very careful to separate his belief from his work.

"So far, the work presented by the DI (and other houses of ID) have failed to pass peer review."

"What would you say would be the major reason for failing pass the muster?

Proximately, there have been too many errors in their work, ultimately proving something is 'designed' without intimate knowledge of the designer is difficult; one has to make some rather large assumptions on which to base initial premises. One example is - in an attempt to prove nature could not produce complexity you have to presume that only intelligence can produce complexity.

"I personally am not one of those who would oppose evolution in the classroom. However...as I look back at some of my own experiences in science classes taught by atheist teachers it does irk me that they gave us the impression evolution explains the origin of life.
They were wrong about that...and I think that sort of thing can create resentment towards evolution.

If you were taught that evolution addresses the origin of life they were, at a minimum, jumping the gun, and at a maximum, misleading. The study of abiogenesis is in its infancy and is quite dependent on our technology and knowledge of potential initial conditions.

However, the study of the genome is strongly indicative of descent from a single species. How this single species gained life is currently unknown.

I have a couple of questions for you.
How did you know your teacher was an atheist?
How will you deal with your faith if science does succeed in reproducing the origin of life?
Based solely on my posts to you, what do you think my stance is on God?

"OK...fair enough."
"Do you think the fact that God enters into their equation makes it more difficult for them? Are the odds stacked against them because of this?"

What affects how well a theist scientist does in his field, aside from his/her abilities but related to his/her beliefs, is the extent that belief interferes with the science. If the scientist starts claiming God as a cause in conclusions then he/she will have a tough time. If the scientist leaves God out of the conclusions, even if the scientist claims that God guided him in his efforts, he is not likely to suffer. The secret is to do as the theists that gave the scientific method its boost several hundred years ago, assume that God does not interfere with experimentation so can be safely left out of conclusions.

[presently no screen name]

Monitoring these threads cannot be an easy task. I was ON that thread and I didn't even see what transpired between the two posters.

[Boiler Plate]

Why don't you ask Him?

[b_sharp]

"That's good to hear.

"I was thinking about an earlier post where someone mentioned Newton's faith in God.
You don't see many threads here lambasting Newton because he felt his discovery gave him insight into the mind of God. People just don't argue over gravity even though no one is quite sure how it works.

You will on occasion hear derogatory remarks about Newton's obsession with Alchemy.

"It is true that the percentage of atheists and agnostics is higher in science than in general society but their numbers are still in the minority."

"This is actually new to me. I was given the impression faith in God was looked down upon."

Here is the result of a survey done in 1997.

"...60% responded, a figure considered high for any surveys. Of those, 40% expressed belief in a deity, while nearly 45% did not."

This implies that 15% are unsure and therefore can not be considered atheistic so the figures would be 40% atheist, 60% non-atheist.

There have been many surveys done in the last few years, some indicate that most scientists do not believe others indicate most scientists do believe. This is probably due to the questions asked and the organization interpreting the data. The survey above used the same questions as used back in 1916 by Dr. James Leuba where he found that 40% professed a belief in a personal God. I believe this gives us the best indicator of changes between then and now. (Note that breaking the categories into 'Belief in a personal God' vs 'All else' gives us a different set of numbers than 'Atheist' vs 'All else').

If you accept anecdotal evidence: I find the majority of evos on FR who post in the crevo threads to be atheistic yet the majority of Scientist evolution proponents who post on talk.origins tend to be theistic or deistic(but not YEC). (Non-scientists there tend to be atheistic)

Part of the problem and the probable cause for the fear of ostracism is the relative vociferousness of the atheist scientists the media tends to focus on.

Don't forget that being an atheist in the US can be very difficult, many run into a very 'anti-atheist' bias, so much so that it can and does affect their daily lives. Christians may feel under the gun in a secular society but so do atheists in what is a largely Christian country.

[ml/nj]

Here is an excerpt from a commencement speech Collins gave at the University of Virginia in 2001. He was speaking about four decisions the graduates must make in their lives.

Decision number two: Well, this is the one that makes people squirm. What are you going to do about faith? Uh oh, not that one. But can there be any more important questions than these: How did we all get here? What is the meaning of life? How is it that we know deep-down inside what is right and wrong and yet rarely succeed in doing what is right for more than about thirty minutes? What happens to us after we die?

Surely these are among the most critical questions in life. And ones which a university should carefully consider. But how much time have you spent on them? Perhaps you, like I, grew up in a home where faith played a significant role, but you never made it your own. Or you concluded it was a fuzzy area that made you uncomfortable. Or even concluded that it was all superstition, like Mark Twain's schoolboy, who when requested to define faith said, 'It is believing what you know ain't so.' Or perhaps you simply assumed that as you grew in knowledge of science that faith was incompatible with a rigorous intellect and that God was irrelevant and obsolete. Well, I am here to tell you that this is not so.

All of those half-truths against the possibility of God have holes in them big enough to drive a truck through, as I learned by reading C.S. Lewis. In my view, there is no conflict between being a 'rigorous, show me the data' physician-scientist and a person who believes in a God who takes a personal interest in each one of us and whose domain is in the spiritual world. A domain not possible to explore by the tools and language and science, but with the heart, the mind and the soul.

Yet, it is remarkable how many of us fail to consider those questions of eternal significance until some personal crisis or advancing age forces us to face our own spiritual impoverishment. Don't make that mistake.

ML/NJ