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.

[Gumlegs]

There's also the matter of different skill sets. A great scientist may not be a great teacher -- that is, the scientist may not be able to break down the material into easily understood bits.

[puroresu]

That's true, of course.

[VadeRetro]

Well, all you're telling me is that you believe there's an unlimited capacity for variation and that that must be how we all got here. That's a belief, not a fact.

When I cite scientific studies, that's me telling you about my faith? Do you think everything is argued the way you witch doctors argue religion?

[VadeRetro]

Do you know for a fact that all life on earth descended via this method from a single original cell? Of course, you don't. No one does.

If Carl Woese is right, the common ancestor is precellular. (RNA-world.) So what? Common descent is still true in that case.

You don't seem to know what evolution is, never mind what the evidence is. Furthermore, I don't think you want to know. You should probably just let science class alone and go back to your voodoo dolls.

[MEGoody]

Sorry, makes no sense to me.

Your choice, of course. But this article is a hit to the "argument" of some evols who try to dismiss the belief in intelligent design of some scientists. The extent of their argument is generally just that these guys are nutcases, blah, blah, blah. You've admitted (perhaps not intentionally) that it is a matter of faith either way, and I can respect that.

[RobRoy]

>>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.<,

This concept is lifted straight from C. S. Lewis' book "Miracles". The verbiage is even similar.

[RobRoy]

>>So many of these arguments can be summarized as "Here is an impossibly complex reality, it must have been made by a thinking God."<<

You miss his point. You are an AM radio questioning the existence of FM. You will not get his point until you have, as he did, a defining epiphany, as ALL Christians have.

His message is not for you - yet.

[RobRoy]

"You don't seem to know what evolution is, never mind what the evidence is."

Not this cr*p again. The word "evolution" has as many meanings as the word "dark".

This "you don't know the meaning of evolution" baloney gets old.

I know the Corvette has evolved. So did the Corvair, but natural selction destroyed it anyway...

[Jonx6]

ping

[Jonx6]

ping

[VadeRetro]

Unless they're happily using the fallacy of equivocation, the people attacking evolution on the crevo threads are talking about biological evolution as explained first by Darwin. Of course, a lot of creationists ARE equivocating when they attack "evolution" with such questions as:

• "Where did all the stuff in the Big Bang come from?" [Huh? Did Darwin write or even know anything at all about the Big Bang?]
• "How did all those sea shells get up on the tops of mountains?" [Ignores rather than attacks plate tectonics. Irrelevant to evolution.]
• "What about Halton Arp?" [An astronomer who has made some crackpot claims regarding quasars. WHAT about him has anything to do with evolution?]
• "What about live shellfish dated to thousands of years old with carbon 14?" [A wildly misdirected attack on the age of the Earth which does not address evolution directly at all.]

People who "love science," they "just have a problem accepting evolution" turn out to have problems with cosmology, astronomy, geology, paleontology, and nuclear chemistry, not to mention at long last biology.

This "you don't know the meaning of evolution" baloney gets old.

You guys not knowing what a theory you claim to be wrong EVEN SAYS gets old.

[tallhappy]

If you've ever talked to vade Retro you find he cannot hold a coherent thought for long, makes no sense logically, and knows very little about evolution or biology.

But he is enamoured by others even more accomplished in similar prejudices and ignorances so he thinks he knows something and regurgitates things.

Case in point his evolution = variation + selection.

[VadeRetro]

I was waiting for some lawyerly rectum to show up. Note that I immediately amended the post to leave a role for neutral drift.

[tallhappy]

Actually what you described was close enough to neutral drift.

Evolution = variation + selection is so broad as to apply to every reproduction or replication. It doesn't inform at all about evolution just redefines the word evolution to be equivalent to life.

[VadeRetro]

Evolution = variation + selection is so broad as to apply to every reproduction or replication.

It does.

It doesn't inform at all about evolution just redefines the word evolution to be equivalent to life.

Life evolves, but that doesn't make evolution life. Stay stupid.

[tallhappy]

Life evolves, but that doesn't make evolution life.

You are the one who said that not me.

In every replicative event prior to meiosis or mitosis for non-sexually reproducing organisms there are or can be variations. In sexually reproducing organisms there is variation in every fertilization when one set of chromosomes comes from sperm and one from oocyte. There is then a selection event upon that organisms subsequent reproduction. Variation and selection describes life.

[curiosity]

Thanks for the ping! I would ping my list, but I am away from the compture upon which it is saved. Oh well, it's an excellent article anyway. Thanks for bringing my attention to it!

[VadeRetro]

What a silly dance you are doing.

Variation and selection describes life.

Dealt with. Variation and selection are the classic Darwinian mechanism of evolution. Evolution, not life. Life is about good books, old Three Stooges shorts, your first big zit, a smile from a pretty girl, a flat tire when you're in a hurry, a well-made cup of coffee, and six other things I'm keeping secret for now. Your attempted substitution fails.

Who do you fool with this kind of argument? Are you going to sway someone with enough brains to be an asset to antievolutionism? What would an asset to a nay-saying antiscience Luddite movement be, anyway?

[Alamo-Girl]

Indeed. Works for me, too.

The Father has revealed Himself in many ways - through Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, Scriptures and Creation. I expect them all to agree and have never been disappointed.

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

Macroevolution would require the addition of genetic material; natural selection does not, relying on existing genetic material in the population. You should know this already.