Reason to Believe : A leading geneticist argues that science can lead to faith

Washington Post ^ | 07/09/2006 | Scott Russell Sanders

[SirLinksalot]

Reason to Believe A leading geneticist argues that science can lead to faith.

Reviewed by Scott Russell Sanders

THE LANGUAGE OF GOD

A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief

By Francis S. Collins

Here we are, briefly, under the sun, one species among millions on a gorgeous planet in the remote provinces of the universe, our very existence a riddle. Of all the words we use to mask our ignorance, none has been more abused, none has given rise to more strife, none has rolled from the tongues of more charlatans than the name of God. Nor has any word been more often invoked as the inspiration for creativity, charity or love.

So what are we talking about when we talk about God? The geneticist Francis S. Collins bravely sets out to answer this question in light of his scientific knowledge and his Christian faith. Having found for himself "a richly satisfying harmony between the scientific and spiritual worldviews," he seeks to persuade others that "belief in God can be an entirely rational choice, and that the principles of faith are, in fact, complementary with the principles of science."

As a researcher who helped discover the genetic basis for cystic fibrosis and other diseases and as the director of the Human Genome Project, Collins brings strong credentials to the scientific side of his argument. For the spiritual side, he draws on Christian authorities such as Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas and C.S. Lewis. His aim is to address "extremists on both sides of the science/faith divide." On one extreme are those scientists who insist that the universe is purely and exclusively matter, and on the other are literal interpreters of the Book of Genesis who reject the last two centuries of scientific discovery.

[MHGinTN]

Even I cannot sit quietly while this is popped out at FR: "... believes in a weak god that had to rely on an imaginary evolving life system." Had to? How about chose to. Weak God? How about so powerful that roughly 15 billion years ago, by our human reckoning, God created a universe of space and time and energy that, over our 15 billion years, has evolved into what we now perceive. I'd say that's a very powerful Creator, not a weak one.

You show to me a system consistent in itself which can bring about the data evident to science now, that could produce all the data in so short a time span as a real 5760 years of 365 days of twenty four hour incriments ... and I'll explain to you how it is that as gravity or an inertial system's velocity goes up in amount time shortens. [And don't be too quick to poopoo what I offer in return because I actually do have a theory that is consistent in achieving the results I claim. Interested? I'll take it to freepmail, if you want.]

[editor-surveyor]

You are an AM radio questioning the existence of FM.

Or, to put it simply, "Spiritual things are spiritually discerned" Dead spirits tell no tales!

[editor-surveyor]

" I'd say that's a very powerful Creator, not a weak one."

Weak in comparison to the real one that did exactly what he said he did: Created it all in six days, and rested on the seventh. I can say with great joy and confidence that my God is bigger than your god. ;o)

[MHGinTN]

"I can say with great joy and confidence that my God is bigger than your god." ;o) I'm glad that you're happy. It does seem odd that you would be so happy based on insufficient evidence of how big 'my God' is, and assumption that your God and my God are not the same God. How do you come to such an astonishing conclusion?

[MHGinTN]

You asserted, "Created it all in six days, and rested on the seventh." I won't disagree, but can you give me a hint as to from whose perspective the six days are counted? Here's a hint for you: from God's perspective of 'being' prior to the advent of time (and space and the energy of the entire universe expressed in a bang), six twenty-four hour incriments can appear as 15 billion years appear from 'down the road' (the other end of the spectrum of creation). By God's perspective, we're still in the seventh day perhaps ...

[editor-surveyor]

"How do you come to such an astonishing conclusion?"

Not really so astonishing, just totally practical. There is massive and accumulating evidence that the Earth cannot be any older that the chronological information in the Bible indicates. The rate at which land slides are making mountains into meadows cannot be extrapolated back more than a few thousand years before the beginning mountains would have to have been 10,000 miles high. Also, there isn't near enough sediment on the ocean floor for more either; including all the sediment that lies in the alluvial fans above sea level. It just doesn't compute.

[MHGinTN]

The fact that you don't understand plate tectonics isn't impressive. Give it another try ...

[editor-surveyor]

"can you give me a hint as to from whose perspective the six days are counted?"

They are clearly indicated to be solar days, both in Genesis, and two places in Deuteronomy, and in the Lord's words in the NT too. Anything else is a humanist stretch job that fails to fit the word.

[editor-surveyor]

It appears to be you that doesn't understand tectonics. The plates are the result of the rupture of "the fountains of the great deep" as stated in the word. No facet of tectonics allows for reconversion of sediment back into basaltic rock. No one has ever advanced such a theory either.

[VadeRetro]

It appears to be you (MHG) that doesn't understand tectonics. The plates are the result of the rupture of "the fountains of the great deep" as stated in the word.

Your plate tectonics class must have been a riot.

No facet of tectonics allows for reconversion of sediment back into basaltic rock.

Subduction.

[blowfish]

No facet of tectonics allows for reconversion of sediment back into basaltic rock. No one has ever advanced such a theory either.

I hope the 'surveying' you do doesn't involve any form of geology...

[editor-surveyor]

No, subduction is essentially the plate remelting as it slips under another. No one has ever advanced the idea that any significant amount of sediment could be carried along for the ride, and the pressures involved make that unlikely.

[editor-surveyor]

I hope that the fish blowing that you do doesn't either. I have done considerable geological mapping in times past.

[betty boop]

Yes, just a bunch of random wonderfulness; how could anything be sinful in such a universe? ;o)

Indeed. That seems to be the appeal of this sort of "materialist model" for at least some of us moderns. Harvard's Stephen Pinker, for one, absolutely luxuriates in it. He is forever running on about human sexuality. But based on what I've read by him so far (not as much as he's written by far), he seems to be deeply troubled, disturbed, exercised, about how to account for/explain the powerful, universal human aversion to incest. [The ancient Egyptian pharaonic practice being the "exception the proves the rule": Pharoah married his sister, if he had one. But then, Pharaoh was "a god" and therefore not subject to the same rules as everybody else.]

So far as I know, Pinker's "model" does not help him resolve this question. At least not so far. Go figure.

Thanks for writing editor-surveyor!

[blowfish]

No one has ever advanced the idea that any significant amount of sediment could be carried along for the ride, and the pressures involved make that unlikely.

Really?

http://tlacaelel.igeofcu.unam.mx/~mary/Manea et al_02.pdf http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/06boa/finalprogram/abstract_101547.htm http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/06boa/finalprogram/abstract_101547.htm http://www.usssp-iodp.org/PDFs/Greatest_Hits/Margins/Silver.pdf http://www.gsajournals.org/gsaonline/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1130%2F0091-7613(1980)8%3C530:SSAFSI%3E2.0.CO%3B2

etc etc etc...

[shield]

bttt

[VadeRetro]

Sediment compacts to rock rather than staying around as loose sediments. Old sediments in whatever form are very rare because they subduct. This is standard geology. Even Precambrian sediments are very rare, and that's only half a billion years out of four and a half million. This is what mainstream science says on the subject.

Looking back over your posts for what else you're mangling:

The rate at which land slides are making mountains into meadows cannot be extrapolated back more than a few thousand years before the beginning mountains would have to have been 10,000 miles high.

Mountains, like icebergs, extend below the surrounding crust as well as above it. Like icebergs, they bob up as they erode from the top, for they are lighter crust materials floating on the denser semi-liquid mantle. Your 10,000 miles high number is absurd in any event, something pulled from a YEC butt.

Plate tectonic models are very reasonable extrapolations from things we can see happening right now. We can see the Himalayas rising right now. We can see the continents creep right now, measuring the process year to year. We have the signature of past oceanic plate motions over hot spots like the one beneath the Hawaiian Islands. That signature is the distribution and geologic age of the islands themselves.

With that kind of evidence and the models we have, you have to be trying to make a mess of it to make a mess of it. The problem is, YECism has to do just that to get to the predetermined and wrong answer of a 6K years-old Earth.

[VadeRetro]

Even Precambrian sediments are very rare, and that's only half a billion years out of four and a half million billion.

Now it makes sense. Grrr!!

[MHGinTN]

Saved me a whole lot of bloviating. Thanks ...

[VadeRetro]

In light of subsequent developments on this thread, let me revisit your earlier comment about how I was "marginalizing" people whose science [ahem!] "just happens to be different." The people peddling bad science on these threads don't just have interesting opinions.

It's about what gets taught in schools. These people know they won't ever get published in the peer-reviewed journals, so they want into science class to confuse the ninth-graders. They are militant about bypassing real science and plopping their nonsense directly in front of people who don't know the real thing yet.