Biologos

[Confused]

Just finished Francis S Collins book "The Language of God". As most of you know, he is a very respected scientist who heads the Human Genome Project and also happens to belong to the group of theistic scientists found on www.asa3.org.

In it, he explains the genetic coding and how the entire population can be linked to a group of 10,000 descendants approx 150,000 years ago. He shows all the fossilezed evidence to support evolution as well as the gentic evidence. Fossilized: best example of Macroevolution is the Stickleback fish as it moved from salt water to fresh water environments after the last ice age. They originally had a continuous row of 3 dozen armored plates to protect themselves from predators in saltwater. Now, with less predators in the freshwater environment, these fish have lost most of their plates. For microevolution, we see how the beak of a finch might change shape over time depending on the food source. But the biggest blow that Dawkins loves to play is that evolution can't explain the irreducible complexity of life. Such as the cascading effects of clotting factors. If you miss one step, the entire process fails. His claim is that because of this, unless one can show biological systems that are very complex and integrated, such as bacterial flagella could be formed by gradual Darwinian progress, then evolution can't explain the origin nor diversity of life. The poster child for Dawkins has been the Bacterial flagellum. The argument is the flagellum had no prior useful function so it couldn't have been created in a step wise fashion: Truth: recent research shows that sevreal components of the flagellum are related to an entirely differenct apparatus used by certain bacteria to inject toxins into other bacteria they are attacking (K R Miller "the Flagellum Unspun" in Dembski and Ruse , Debating Design pgs 81-97)

So we have irrefutable evidence of both macro and mircro evolution. Collins rejects Creationism and Intelligent Design (on the basis that it relies so much on the God of Gaps that science seems to be making a mockery of with every new discovery). Instead he proposes Biologos.

He says let science answer the questions it was meant to answer and religion answer the questions it was meant to answer. The central tenets:
1) Universe came into being out of nothingness, ~14 billion years ago.
2) Despite massive improbabilities, the properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life
3) While the mechanism of origin of life is unkown, once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and comlexity over very long periods of time
4) Once evolution got under way, no special supernatural intervention was required.
5) Humans are part of this process, sharing common ancestry with the great apes.
6) But humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explaination and point to our spiritual nature (to include the existence of moral law and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history.

So the questions for debate:

In light of all the discoveries made by science can science and religion coexist and compliment each other under this Biologos?

Is it possible that the bridge between science and relgion has finally been defined and merged when Collins says that science should answer the natural and allow God to answer the supernatural?

[QED]

I'm still looking for a proper admission of ambiguity in all this so, for example, when I see:

2) Despite massive improbabilities, the properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life.

the phrase "massive improbabilities" swamps the weasel words "appears to have".

Anyone who is unaware of the various flavours of the Anthropic Principle (or more specifically The Anthropic Cosmological Principle) is highly likely to see an act of deliberate creation in this sentence. This is true of evolution also because our present forms could also be described as "massive improbabilities". Dawkin's coined a dandy little phrase that probably annoys the heck out of the ID folk "Climbing Mount Improbable". But that's just what the Theory of Evolution does through the use of a simple logical "trick" that would ratchet living things along.

[Furrowed Brow]

Is it possible that the bridge between science and relgion has finally been defined and merged when Collins says that science should answer the natural and allow God to answer the supernatural?

Where does the dividing line fall? As our knowledge has grown the role of the supernatural has diminished. I think the opposing forces of say ID v Evolution, or Creationism v Evolution, or teleology v blind nature, are debates formed by a theistic reaction to the advance of scientific enquiry; one motivated by a deep sense that the supernatural circle they are standing in is getting smaller and smaller.

[PS Achilles is right. You've really stepped up a couple of grades of late. Is this anything to do with your recent coming to terms with atheism?]

[Confused]

I'm still looking for a proper admission of ambiguity in all this so, for example, when I see:

2) Despite massive improbabilities, the properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life.

the phrase "massive improbabilities" swamps the weasel words "appears to have".

Anyone who is unaware of the various flavours of the Anthropic Principle (or more specifically The Anthropic Cosmological Principle) is highly likely to see an act of deliberate creation in this sentence. This is true of evolution also because our present forms could also be described as "massive improbabilities". Dawkin's coined a dandy little phrase that probably annoys the heck out of the ID folk "Climbing Mount Improbable". But that's just what the Theory of Evolution does through the use of a simple logical "trick" that would ratchet living things along.

This is why I am very interested in this. It would appear that Collins has applied the same principles theists use to evolution and found a somewhat of an even ground for it. Collins claims leave the supernatural (things science will never be able to answer such as "why this planet" and "what existed before this universe") to the spiritual realm, but leave the natural (things science can answer or may eventually find a scientific answer for such as irreducible complexity of which science has found answers for as well as genetic comparisons such as with the human genome project that can link common ancestry down to the most basic form of genetics) explainations to science, as was intended. Of course there is a mixture of spiritualism in the tenets, but I wouldn't go to the extreme of saying creationism. Collins actually does a good job of discrediting both creationism and intelligent design.

As to the anthropic principle, I think Hawkins was somewhat in line with the tenet when he says "It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun injust this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us". Freeman Dyson also concludes that "the more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming". Of course all of this is assuming that there was a creator behind the big bang.

[QED]

As to the anthropic principle, I think Hawkins was somewhat in line with the tenet when he says "It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun injust this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us".

That's an application of the stronger forms of the Anthropic Principle though. If we substitute a greater state-space for God (i.e. a foamy ocean of other universes which have physical properties more or less conducive to the emergence of sentient life like ours) then we have no such difficulties in explaining why our universe began as it did. Only a philosophical prejudice towards our existence being intentional could motivate ignorance of this very real potential. People may find it easier to picture a Designer God standing at the threshold of the big-bang in a singular act of creation, but the picture of universes as interconnected bubbles of space-time is scientifically plausible and stands as a structure wherein intention to arrive at beings like us is neither ruled in nor out. That will remain the true ambiguity of our situation until such time as a truly unambiguous discovery is made.

Freeman Dyson also concludes that "the more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming". Of course all of this is assuming that there was a creator behind the big bang.

Absolutely. The boundary conditions of our universe set it up as a place where life could emerge. All the way down the line lay a series of contingencies that have resulted in our current position as observers of our universe. Had anything been significantly different we simply wouldn't be here to notice the fact. Observational slants like this inevitably colour all sorts of perspectives. We have to learn to set aside observations that can create false impressions and that very much bangs-up against all those certainties held by theologians.

[Confused]

As to the anthropic principle, I think Hawkins was somewhat in line with the tenet when he says "It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun injust this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us".

That's an application of the stronger forms of the Anthropic Principle though. If we substitute a greater state-space for God (i.e. a foamy ocean of other universes which have physical properties more or less conducive to the emergence of sentient life like ours) then we have no such difficulties in explaining why our universe began as it did. Only a philosophical prejudice towards our existence being intentional could motivate ignorance of this very real potential. People may find it easier to picture a Designer God standing at the threshold of the big-bang in a singular act of creation, but the picture of universes as interconnected bubbles of space-time is scientifically plausible and stands as a structure wherein intention to arrive at beings like us is neither ruled in nor out. That will remain the true ambiguity of our situation until such time as a truly unambiguous discovery is made.

Freeman Dyson also concludes that "the more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming". Of course all of this is assuming that there was a creator behind the big bang.

Absolutely. The boundary conditions of our universe set it up as a place where life could emerge. All the way down the line lay a series of contingencies that have resulted in our current position as observers of our universe. Had anything been significantly different we simply wouldn't be here to notice the fact. Observational slants like this inevitably colour all sorts of perspectives. We have to learn to set aside observations that can create false impressions and that very much bangs-up against all those certainties held by theologians.

Very true. A creator/God need not be the force behind creation. I just find it amazing at how eloquently he can apply science and religion without ruling one or the other out. He is one of the first scientists I have seen do this. And I am also amazed at how he can set aside his religious prejudices and see science without a biased view. He may add his bias into things science can't explain and likely never will, but his ability to reserve this bias in the name of science such as he did as the head of the Human Genome Project is amazing to me. I think for the most part he has successfully prevented false impressions from interfering with research.

[QED]

Very true. A creator/God need not be the force behind creation. I just find it amazing at how eloquently he can apply science and religion without ruling one or the other out. He is one of the first scientists I have seen do this.

It's not all that hard to do at a basic level. As the theist will quickly point out -- even a multiverse might have a creator. The awkward part however is in connecting this with our present situation. A God who creates as per the story of Genesis clearly has much closer ties to humanity than one who turns on a cosmic bubble machine which can't help but produce a few universes capable of supporting sentient life now and then.

[Confused]

Is it possible that the bridge between science and relgion has finally been defined and merged when Collins says that science should answer the natural and allow God to answer the supernatural?

Where does the dividing line fall? As our knowledge has grown the role of the supernatural has diminished. I think the opposing forces of say ID v Evolution, or Creationism v Evolution, or teleology v blind nature, are debates formed by a theistic reaction to the advance of scientific enquiry; one motivated by a deep sense that the supernatural circle they are standing in is getting smaller and smaller.

[PS Achilles is right. You've really stepped up a couple of grades of late. Is this anything to do with your recent coming to terms with atheism?]

It is finally finding a foundation that has lead me to focus more narrowly on truth. Not to mention competing with the knowledge of you, QED, McCulloch, and Cathar is so intimidating that I had to expand my horizons by getting back to the basics and then focusing on a solid foundation just to keep up. Read more books non-fiction books in the past 2 weeks than I have in the past two years. Laurell K Hamilton might not like this. LOL.

I don't see many creationists changing their viewpoints based on the more advancements we make in scientific knowledge. Usually I see them just flat out deny the entire content of evolution as garbage. Now intelligent design really kills me. The basis for their tenets has to change every time we learn something new. Collins put it well when he said that ID continuous use of the God of Gaps will be its downfall. The final blow to ID, IMHO, was when science started to show how irreducible complexity can occur naturally therefore it doesn't require the use of the supernatural. Science has proven this with the bacterial flagellum and the eye. But I think Shermer makes a better case in "Why Darwin matters, the case against ID" when he point to 10 things that make no sense for an intelligent creator to create:
1) Male nipples, 2) male uterus, 3) thirteenth rib ( only 8% of population has this extra set, just like chimps and apes), 4) coccyx 5) wisdom teeth, 6) appendix, 7) body hair (though it assists with tactile sensation, it isn't required for it), 8) goose bumps (erector pili serves no physiological function), 9) Extrinsic ear muscles and 10) third eyelid.

Since science has destroyed the poster child of ID irreducible complexity, bacterial flagellum, they have now started to focus on the cascading factors of the bodies clotting process. Will be interesting to find out how this turns out.

I think why I respected Collins was that the line for him was considering what is natural requires natural explanations. Science can explain much and to turn a blind eye to it because of an ancient textbook is like slapping your own God in the face because had your God not wanted science to discover what it has, he would have prevented it. I always heard God gave man the tools, man just has to learn how to use them. Instead, I see God gave man the tools and man chooses to ignore them (avg theist). This is ignorance, not enlightenment. While as QED has pointed out, there are undertones of a creator in some of the tenets of biologos, the reason I respect Collins approach is that he proposes Supernatural explanations should only be applied in areas in which science will never be able to explain. That is a very fine line he treads, but at least it is progress. Science will never be able to go far enough back in history to explain why the big bang occurred or what was here first, or why our planet seemed to develop in a manner that was perfect for life as we know it to begin and evolve. Science isn't designed to explain these things. So his basic logo is to leave natural explanations to what science was designed to explain and leave supernatural explanations to what science wasn't meant to address (though perhaps philosophy was).

[Furrowed Brow]

Is it possible that the bridge between science and relgion has finally been defined and merged when Collins says that science should answer the natural and allow God to answer the supernatural?

Where does the dividing line fall? As our knowledge has grown the role of the supernatural has diminished. I think the opposing forces of say ID v Evolution, or Creationism v Evolution, or teleology v blind nature, are debates formed by a theistic reaction to the advance of scientific enquiry; one motivated by a deep sense that the supernatural circle they are standing in is getting smaller and smaller.

[PS Achilles is right. You've really stepped up a couple of grades of late. Is this anything to do with your recent coming to terms with atheism?]

It is finally finding a foundation that has lead me to focus more narrowly on truth. Not to mention competing with the knowledge of you, QED, McCulloch, and Cathar is so intimidating that I had to expand my horizons by getting back to the basics and then focusing on a solid foundation just to keep up. Read more books non-fiction books in the past 2 weeks than I have in the past two years. Laurell K Hamilton might not like this. LOL.

I don't see many creationists changing their viewpoints based on the more advancements we make in scientific knowledge. Usually I see them just flat out deny the entire content of evolution as garbage. Now intelligent design really kills me. The basis for their tenets has to change every time we learn something new. Collins put it well when he said that ID continuous use of the God of Gaps will be its downfall. The final blow to ID, IMHO, was when science started to show how irreducible complexity can occur naturally therefore it doesn't require the use of the supernatural. Science has proven this with the bacterial flagellum and the eye. But I think Shermer makes a better case in "Why Darwin matters, the case against ID" when he point to 10 things that make no sense for an intelligent creator to create:
1) Male nipples, 2) male uterus, 3) thirteenth rib ( only 8% of population has this extra set, just like chimps and apes), 4) coccyx 5) wisdom teeth, 6) appendix, 7) body hair (though it assists with tactile sensation, it isn't required for it), 8) goose bumps (erector pili serves no physiological function), 9) Extrinsic ear muscles and 10) third eyelid.

Since science has destroyed the poster child of ID irreducible complexity, bacterial flagellum, they have now started to focus on the cascading factors of the bodies clotting process. Will be interesting to find out how this turns out.

I think why I respected Collins was that the line for him was considering what is natural requires natural explanations. Science can explain much and to turn a blind eye to it because of an ancient textbook is like slapping your own God in the face because had your God not wanted science to discover what it has, he would have prevented it. I always heard God gave man the tools, man just has to learn how to use them. Instead, I see God gave man the tools and man chooses to ignore them (avg theist). This is ignorance, not enlightenment. While as QED has pointed out, there are undertones of a creator in some of the tenets of biologos, the reason I respect Collins approach is that he proposes Supernatural explanations should only be applied in areas in which science will never be able to explain. That is a very fine line he treads, but at least it is progress. Science will never be able to go far enough back in history to explain why the big bang occurred or what was here first, or why our planet seemed to develop in a manner that was perfect for life as we know it to begin and evolve. Science isn't designed to explain these things. So his basic logo is to leave natural explanations to what science was designed to explain and leave supernatural explanations to what science wasn't meant to address (though perhaps philosophy was).

I hope I'm not really intimidating. Anyway your now starting to intimidate me!

[Cathar1950]

I am counting my ribs now Confused. I am getting goose bumps.

[Confused]

Is it possible that the bridge between science and relgion has finally been defined and merged when Collins says that science should answer the natural and allow God to answer the supernatural?

Where does the dividing line fall? As our knowledge has grown the role of the supernatural has diminished. I think the opposing forces of say ID v Evolution, or Creationism v Evolution, or teleology v blind nature, are debates formed by a theistic reaction to the advance of scientific enquiry; one motivated by a deep sense that the supernatural circle they are standing in is getting smaller and smaller.

[PS Achilles is right. You've really stepped up a couple of grades of late. Is this anything to do with your recent coming to terms with atheism?]

It is finally finding a foundation that has lead me to focus more narrowly on truth. Not to mention competing with the knowledge of you, QED, McCulloch, and Cathar is so intimidating that I had to expand my horizons by getting back to the basics and then focusing on a solid foundation just to keep up. Read more books non-fiction books in the past 2 weeks than I have in the past two years. Laurell K Hamilton might not like this. LOL.

I don't see many creationists changing their viewpoints based on the more advancements we make in scientific knowledge. Usually I see them just flat out deny the entire content of evolution as garbage. Now intelligent design really kills me. The basis for their tenets has to change every time we learn something new. Collins put it well when he said that ID continuous use of the God of Gaps will be its downfall. The final blow to ID, IMHO, was when science started to show how irreducible complexity can occur naturally therefore it doesn't require the use of the supernatural. Science has proven this with the bacterial flagellum and the eye. But I think Shermer makes a better case in "Why Darwin matters, the case against ID" when he point to 10 things that make no sense for an intelligent creator to create:
1) Male nipples, 2) male uterus, 3) thirteenth rib ( only 8% of population has this extra set, just like chimps and apes), 4) coccyx 5) wisdom teeth, 6) appendix, 7) body hair (though it assists with tactile sensation, it isn't required for it), 8) goose bumps (erector pili serves no physiological function), 9) Extrinsic ear muscles and 10) third eyelid.

Since science has destroyed the poster child of ID irreducible complexity, bacterial flagellum, they have now started to focus on the cascading factors of the bodies clotting process. Will be interesting to find out how this turns out.

I think why I respected Collins was that the line for him was considering what is natural requires natural explanations. Science can explain much and to turn a blind eye to it because of an ancient textbook is like slapping your own God in the face because had your God not wanted science to discover what it has, he would have prevented it. I always heard God gave man the tools, man just has to learn how to use them. Instead, I see God gave man the tools and man chooses to ignore them (avg theist). This is ignorance, not enlightenment. While as QED has pointed out, there are undertones of a creator in some of the tenets of biologos, the reason I respect Collins approach is that he proposes Supernatural explanations should only be applied in areas in which science will never be able to explain. That is a very fine line he treads, but at least it is progress. Science will never be able to go far enough back in history to explain why the big bang occurred or what was here first, or why our planet seemed to develop in a manner that was perfect for life as we know it to begin and evolve. Science isn't designed to explain these things. So his basic logo is to leave natural explanations to what science was designed to explain and leave supernatural explanations to what science wasn't meant to address (though perhaps philosophy was).

I hope I'm not really intimidating. Anyway your now starting to intimidate me!

Seriously doubt I will ever measure up. I just want to keep up.