Posted on 04/07/2008 2:25:19 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
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.
“I don’t see that as necessary at all and I think it is deeply disappointing that the shrill voices that occupy the extremes of this spectrum have dominated the stage for the past 20 years.”
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.”
Collins joins a line of scientists whose research deepened their belief in God. Isaac Newton, whose discovery of the laws of gravity reshaped our understanding of the universe, said: “This most beautiful system could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.”
Although Einstein revolutionised our thinking about time, gravity and the conversion of matter to energy, he believed the universe had a creator. “I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details,” he said. However Galileo was famously questioned by the inquisition and put on trial in 1633 for the “heresy” of claiming that the earth moved around the sun.
Among Collins’s most controversial beliefs is that of “theistic evolution”, which claims natural selection is the tool that God chose to create man. In his version of the theory, he argues that man will not evolve further.
“I see God’s hand at work through the mechanism of evolution. If God chose to create human beings in his image and decided that the mechanism of evolution was an elegant way to accomplish that goal, who are we to say that is not the way,” he says.
“Scientifically, the forces of evolution by natural selection have been profoundly affected for humankind by the changes in culture and environment and the expansion of the human species to 6 billion members. So what you see is pretty much what you get.”
Collins was an atheist until the age of 27, when as a young doctor he was impressed by the strength that faith gave to some of his most critical patients.
“They had terrible diseases from which they were probably not going to escape, and yet instead of railing at God they seemed to lean on their faith as a source of great comfort and reassurance,” he said. “That was interesting, puzzling and unsettling.”
He decided to visit a Methodist minister and was given a copy of C S Lewis’s Mere Christianity, which argues that God is a rational possibility. The book transformed his life. “It was an argument I was not prepared to hear,” he said. “I was very happy with the idea that God didn’t exist, and had no interest in me. And yet at the same time, I could not turn away.”
His epiphany came when he went hiking through the Cascade Mountains in Washington state. He said: “It was a beautiful afternoon and suddenly the remarkable beauty of creation around me was so overwhelming, I felt, ‘I cannot resist this another moment’.”
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.
No, not Dr. Doolittle, but Dr. of Vet Med. Does that help?
No, not Dr. Doolittle, but Dr. of Vet Med. Does that help?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not much, I was unaware that that qualified you to read the thought processes of animals.
One can deduce that actions usually follow thinking unless you are a politician or crook.
2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The above is the definition of atheist according to Webster’s online dictionary. May I ask how you determined that lower animals have a disbelief in deity or a doctrine that there is no deity in light of your earlier post indicating that they lack the capacity to understand the concept of a deity. I may be subject to correction but it seems to me that a creature unable to understand the concept of deity could not possibly be atheist. Of course, judging from your post number 40 it may have been your intent to refer to all atheists as lower animals rather than human as if lack of belief made one nonhuman so that by lower animal you actually mean some of your fellow human beings. If that is the case you are amazingly arrogant.
Humans share many characteristics with animals but having an appreciation for God is not one of them. And for the record, there are no atheists in the human world. They all profess religion if they see the end coming. Soldiers in combat will tell you the most hardened self-professed atheist often prays out loud when the bullets start whistling by. There is no evidence that animals are capable of belief in God—I am sorry if you don’t know that, but there it is. Any human with a modicum of awareness of the complexity of life and the universe generally figures out the existence of God. Time and chance are poor creators of complex systems. If you think animals share this awareness, can you provide a single example from all of recorded history?
My dogs are not atheists. However, they mistakenly believe that I am God.
Who said anything about creating matter and the laws of nature out of nothing? We’re not talking about that.
____________________
I did. By cordoning off one argument from another you get nonsense results because there is nothing to limit the theories you create if you limit the types of arguments you allow . . . no reality to guide you, no reality check. If God explains both creation of the universe and creation of life it explains existence while your alien theory could explain only creation of life. And . . . our physics right now says that faster than light travel for material beings is impossible so . . . how did those aliens get here?
Are you sure you are not a liberal? You have totally ignored what I am saying and have attacked a straw man by attributing things that I never said. I never said anything about the awareness of animals, I merely questioned how you could know. Until animals learn to communicate in human language I remain uncertain as to what their level of awareness might be. I am told that whales communicate over incredible distances in the ocean but I don’t know what they might be saying to each other, and lack of evidence is not in itself evidence of lack. I certainly don’t intend to search for a historical example to prove an assertion I never made. My point is that either you pretend to knowledge you don’t actually have or you intended to belittle those who call themselves atheists (which I am not if you haven’t figured that out) by referring to them as lower animals.
What we have here is a failure to communicate. No need to call me insulting names. I may not be the brightest star but that sure doesn’t qualify me as a liberal. You anthropomorphize too much.
“You anthropomorphize too much”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I believe you are the one who said that lower animals are atheist even though, according to your own words and the definition of atheism, lower animals lack the capacity to be atheists. Yet you accuse ME of anthropomorphizing?
“However, they mistakenly believe that I am God.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Or maybe you just think they do. I am currently trying to fathom a Border Collie, she is ten years old and my stepson got her as a puppie from a neighbor. Sometimes I think that dog may be smarter than I am. Of course some I know would jump at the chance to tell me I am not speaking very highly of the dog at that 80)
Check the definition: you are attempting to attribute human capacity and thinking ability to animals.
In your hypothetical, regardless of the reason, isn’t it true that at this point in time, at certainly at the point of creation, the creator(s) had more power (broadly construed) than the creation?
Isn’t that what a “god” is-—for example, the idea of the Greek gods were very human-like but with more power than humans?
Wouldn’t your proposed aliens be “gods” in that vein?
By whatever means, were they not superior in power to what they created at the time they created it? The argument that I think you’re making-—that the creation may some day be manifested as equal or superior to its creator-—is beside the point.
You said you would stipulate to a definition of “god(s)”—ie., not talking about the God of the Bible—and I said an alien race that, by dint of inherent power or advanced civilization or advanced technology, could create humans and the Earth would functionally be “gods” over those humans and the Earth.
The master remains the master unless and until the student overtakes him.
We, the human race, have yet to overtake our creator, and your argument that we may become as powerful as our creator in the future-—or even that we are as powerful now, but will learn to manifest that power only in the future-—doesn’t change that reality now.
Right now, viz-a-vis the creator, we are still the creation.
“Check the definition: you are attempting to attribute human capacity and thinking ability to animals.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I know that! You are the one who thinks animals can be atheists even though that requires human capacity and thinking ability which you said at the start that they don’t possess! You need an interpreter or something? You are awfully slow on the uptake today. See if you can manage to understand what I am saying, please.
Biologists disagree.
The small handful of “biologists” that disagree are not scientists. Statistics is the only pure science, and it is infallible with large samples. No real scientist challenges statistical analysis ever.
I concede animals do not know the difference. A capacity of intelligence found only in humans is necessary to believe in God. Simple observation by humans of a complex world requires said belief.
But biologists that agree with you that evolution doesn't exist *are* scientists? Interesting concept. The study of biology is only true when your interpretation of the Bible trumps it. So why study biology or medicine at all? Just read the Bible. Everything "true" is in there, and anything not there is false. The Bible doesn't describe evolution in Genesis 1 and 2, so it is false.
Statistics is the only pure science, and it is infallible with large samples. No real scientist challenges statistical analysis ever.
Someone once said "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics". Statistics can be useful, but when you put garbage in, you get garbage out. The numbers you quoted in the earlier post is a great example of that.
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.