'Explore as much as we can': Nobel Prize winner Charles Townes on evolution & intelligent design

UC Berkeley News ^ | 06/17/2005 | Bonnie Azab Powell,

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for those beautiful passages! They shall be my meditation when I logoff tonight.

[MHGinTN]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

I read Lisa's book last year. It was quite instructive on branes and possible mediators or communications between branes. I use bits here and there in That's In The Bible?, especially in the section I did on Daniel chapter five, the handwriting on the wall scene.

[ahayes]

I swear you make my head hurt. He was not talking about the Bible, your stating so, or thinking he might have said so of it in other circumstances, or thinking it would be so nice if he would have said it, or supposing in some mystical fashion he was talking about both at the same time without knowing it does not change the fact that he was talking about the human genome.

[betty boop]

...he was talking about the human genome....

Ultimately, he was speaking about God:

For Collins, unravelling the human genome did not create a conflict in his mind. Instead, it allowed him to “glimpse at the workings of God”.

“When you make a breakthrough it is a moment of scientific exhilaration because you have been on this search and seem to have found it,” he said. “But it is also a moment where I at least feel closeness to the creator in the sense of having now perceived something that no human knew before but God knew all along.

“When you have for the first time in front of you this 3.1 billion-letter instruction book that conveys all kinds of information and all kinds of mystery about humankind, you can’t survey that going through page after page without a sense of awe. I can’t help but look at those pages and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God’s mind.”

Why is that (seemingly) so difficult for you to accept?

[betty boop]

...the Mind of God preceded information on the order of the universe as God deunified to allow dimensions to express and the universe to manifest and then become aware of itself and thus of God.

Indeed, MHGinTN. And the spoken Word of God (sound) preceded the primordial light. The universe is "informed" at its root.

[js1138]

Why is that (seemingly) so difficult for you to accept?

Why is it so difficult for you to admit a mistake? This seems to be a habit of yours.

[ahayes]

You said he was speaking about the Bible. We pointed out he was speaking about the genome. It’s a trivial mistake (you trusted the wrong source), yet instead of saying, “Oops, I had the context wrong on that,” you continued to say that he was talking about the Bible, then said that he was talking about both simultaneously, and now say that he was talking about God. Duh! Of course he was talking about God, but he was definitely not talking about the Bible!

My question is why you have such a hard time backing down when we point out something you’ve quoted was actually never said or was said in a different context than you gave? We agree truth and what actually happened is important, right, so why is it you have to be dragged kicking and screaming into admitting the facts?

[Alamo-Girl]

I'm so glad to hear it, dear MHGinTN! And I look forward to reading your book.

[betty boop]

I look forward to reading your book.

Me too!!! :^)

[betty boop]

My question is why you have such a hard time backing down when we point out something you’ve quoted was actually never said or was said in a different context than you gave?

I gather you two would rather discuss me and my shortcomings than the topic at hand. :^)

If you can't "win" on points, then disqualify your opponent.

[ahayes]

Grasp quickly, there’s another straw!

[js1138]

I gather you two would rather discuss me and my shortcomings than the topic at hand. :^) If you can't "win" on points, then disqualify your opponent.

Making mistakes is not a shortcoming. Refusing to acknowledge or correct them is.

Quoting out of context (and thus misquoting) is among the most common errors made on these threads. If we cannot agree that accurate attribution and correct interpretation of quotations is important, we cannot have a dialog.

[betty boop]

If we cannot agree that accurate attribution and correct interpretation of quotations is important, we cannot have a dialog.

Sounds good to me! :^)

[cornelis]

You can lead a horse to the water, you can’t make them drink.

[MHGinTN]

*