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]

The DNA in a bacterium, mouse, man or tree speaks of a single trick that liberates atoms into an independent form of existence. A new career if you like.

Thanks QED, I have been looking for a way to say that.
I like to think of most life forms we know today as that trick after many millions and maybe billions of years of changes as they try to replicate themselves.
Most don't make it but the ones that do stand out and look like the universe was fit to order when actually they fit the universe.
I just got “Nature's Destiny” and I must remember to continue this line of thought in the thread. But what I noticed was that Denton has it backwards.
It is not that the Universe is finely tuned to promote life but life has been finely tuned to the universe by accidental or contingent means. I like the idea of an enfolding or is it infolding, universe where everything is related and connected. What makes a subatomic particle what it is, is its relationship to other subatomic particles, which is related to everything else. I could use a little help here with this concept I am trying to grasp.

Well, it certainly spells out the ambiguity we're facing. That's why one or other party has it backwards. But which one? It doesn't make it wrong per se, but the idea that everything has been prepared just so is plain ugly to me. Take the Extremophiles for example. We could argue that they were designed to live in the presence of ionizing radiation that would kill most organisms or in the super-heated waters surrounding thermal vents but would it matter if such applications had been omitted by the grand designer? It seems far more reasonable to interpret these bizarre organisms as having adapted to their environment just short of the point where it's no longer viable for life based on our sort of chemistry.

[Cathar1950]

It does seem that life was designed for the universe and not the other way around.
It might be just a outcome that is perfectly natural in the universe. Given the right conditions and resources all the elements come as the product of conditions.
What ever the first organisms or what ever it was had what we call DNA or genes as we call them and what we have is what happens to those building bocks given conditions over time.
It is not that certain gene are there to make eyes but that given those combinations eyes are what you get.
Until some combination or differnece it worked out we don't know what it is going to be but there are limits to expression. We got things with four arms or legs because something got one appendage and then two then four. I am still working on the detail as I am trying to a vision of change over billions of years. The only thing I got to compare it with is my short life span and those around me.

[Confused]

I think it is a catch 22 in many ways. Without the design of the universe, life couldn't have evolved as we know it (carbon-based). Now the design of the universe doesn't require life, but life requires the design of the universe. Without the immense explosions of stars, all the elements needed for life (carbon, nitrogen,oxygen, and iron) may have never been released. But still the universe would have continued to exist. We know the universe is older than man. But it is a wide leap to say the universe was created for man.

I like Biologos because it not only recongnizes that the universal constants we have are necessary for life, life isn't needed for the universal constants. I admit, I am biased in the way of Collins because I respect his work with the Human Genome Project, of which without, my Chronic Mylegenous Leukemia would be associated with the "philadelphia gene" but there would never be hope of a "cure". with his research, he offers hope with genetic manipulation to erradicate this form of CML. But I also like that though one can see the undertones of religion in his tenets, he fully accepts evolution and doesn't force a God into it.

[LightGrenade04]

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

Yes.

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?

1) Yes.

2) The "gap" between science and religion is largely contemporary; the normative historical relationship between science and religion has mostly been one of concordance rather than conflict. Even regarding evolution; many Christians during the 19th century and early 20th had no problems with it. B.B. Warfield (one of the fathers of biblical inerrancy), Asa Gray, and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin come to mind.

[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?

Ok lets run with the bridge analogy. So science deals with physical phenomena. Where does the supernatural start? Where is the other end of the bridge? And what are we bridging?

It sound like Collins is able to accept the science. But does he define the superantural? What question lie the other end of the bridge and is off limits to science?

[QED]

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?

Ok lets run with the bridge analogy. So science deals with physical phenomena. Where does the supernatural start? Where is the other end of the bridge? And what are we bridging?

It sound like Collins is able to accept the science. But does he define the superantural? What question lie the other end of the bridge and is off limits to science?

Good questions. Human psychology frequently presents situations where we know something rationally (typically, that our behaviour is self-destructive) but despite being true, we seem to have this peculiar power to set the information aside in favour of "other beliefs". Might the supernatural also be defined in these terms?

[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?

Ok lets run with the bridge analogy. So science deals with physical phenomena. Where does the supernatural start? Where is the other end of the bridge? And what are we bridging?

It sound like Collins is able to accept the science. But does he define the superantural? What question lie the other end of the bridge and is off limits to science?

My guess, the supernatural starts at that point on the bridge in which theists say they know that God exists because they can feel His presence. Perhaps with faith. We are bridging science with religion silly . Darwin is at one end and God is at the other. The earth is at one end and a fork at the other with one leading to heaven and on to hell. Gosh, don't you read the bible? Silly Furrowed, trick are for kids

[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?

Ok lets run with the bridge analogy. So science deals with physical phenomena. Where does the supernatural start? Where is the other end of the bridge? And what are we bridging?

It sound like Collins is able to accept the science. But does he define the superantural? What question lie the other end of the bridge and is off limits to science?

Good questions. Human psychology frequently presents situations where we know something rationally (typically, that our behaviour is self-destructive) but despite being true, we seem to have this peculiar power to set the information aside in favour of "other beliefs". Might the supernatural also be defined in these terms?

Wouldn't that be more along the lines of a psychological disorder such as addictions or schizophrenia?

Ok, serious time: I think faith might be defined by these terms. But there is nothing supernatural about faith. It is usually purely emotional. I think supernatural would have to be a metaphysical/physical process. In the physical realm one would have to lack the ability to distinguish fact from fiction despite the evidence blatantly obvious to those around you that it is fiction. Sensationalizing an otherwise normal event in favor of a paranormal event. In the metaphysical realm it would be lacking the ability to see the normal event as normal, rather you would feel the paranormal sense.

Perhaps that is the same thing with different wording. I have been awake to long.

[micatala]

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?

I am getting back to this thread finally, and would again like to thank Confused for the recommendation. I did borrow a copy of Collins and found it interesting and encouraging reading. Even as a 'lay theologian' writing more from a personal standpoint, I found much of what he had to say very insightful.

To answer the questions, yes I think Biologos is a reasonable accomodation of faith and science.

As far as the supernatural, I don't know how I would define this precisely. Certainly what people have considered supernatural has changed over time. Today, many proclaim that the supernatural does not exist. I do not accept this, but certainly would have a limited view, as does Collins, of how the supernatural effects the physical or natural realm.

Well, it certainly spells out the ambiguity we're facing. That's why one or other party has it backwards. But which one? It doesn't make it wrong per se, but the idea that everything has been prepared just so is plain ugly to me.

I would agree. This comment to me points out how subjective a lot of the positions related to this issue are. Creationists look at evolution as 'ugly'. I look at evolution as elegant and beautiful. Creationists think of evolution as 'degrading God'. I look at evolution as much more worthy of the infinite wisdom and subtlty of God then YEC.

[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?

Ok lets run with the bridge analogy. So science deals with physical phenomena. Where does the supernatural start? Where is the other end of the bridge? And what are we bridging?

It sound like Collins is able to accept the science. But does he define the superantural? What question lie the other end of the bridge and is off limits to science?

Good questions. Human psychology frequently presents situations where we know something rationally (typically, that our behaviour is self-destructive) but despite being true, we seem to have this peculiar power to set the information aside in favour of "other beliefs". Might the supernatural also be defined in these terms?

I remember the first year of my degree. It was a course tailored for mature students. One module I was taking was psychology. One lecture/seminar was on parapsychology. The room was full of about thirty people. Mostly over thirty. As the discussion progressed it was evident I was the only sceptic in the room. Including the lecturer. The non sceptics, I suggest, were also the kind of people who prided themselves on having an open mind and being sceptical and open to evidence.

I was mentioning stuff like certain debunking entertainers I was aware of, who as part of their act would "close read" people or offer remote readings. I recalled one guy I had seen who had been given the task of providing readings for three woman. after interviewing these women, he had given each a written page detailing their hopes, aspects of their lives, etc etc. Each women on camera agreed the read was somewhere between 90% to 100% accurate. That he had told them things no one else could have known etc. The punch line was that each women had been given the same reading. He used a template of stock phrases and open assertions that sounded personal.

I also mentioning some experiments with magnetic fields I was aware of that for the subject induce the strange sensation of being touched.

After mentioning these kind of counter examples, and suggesting that when studied carefully a more down to earth non supernatural explanation was available for a host of phenomena the room turned against me. Frankly I would have been more popular if I said I ate babies. The reaction was of the kind - That can't possibly be true. Too much strange stuff happens to be explained away. I should not have such a closed mind Hmm. Yeah.

What was really going on was that the group was just not open to the possiblity that a stage technique like close reading was the same technique deployed by another bunch of entertainers that go by the name of spiritualists. It just was not possible that all spiritualists could be just using stage techniques. Hm Mm. No way. Or that certain sensations of feeling a presence or being touched could have a physical explanation. Hm Mm. These supernatural forces were jusy like invisible.

On reflection. I don't think it was so much these people wanted the supernatural explanation to be true. They just did not want a natural explanation to be true. It was like that was too easy. The world just had to be stranger than that. I would also say there was a deep rooted anti science bias. And I think this stemmed from an attitude of - You should not try and understand everything. As if debunking something people really think is true was just poor form.

Well most of these guys and girls went on to specialize in Literature, and I did Philosophy. Again there was a general meme in the air that said - philosophy asked too many question to be good for you.

I wonder whether these people were somehow equating credulity with humility and incredulity with intellectual arrogance. That's the way it seemed to me.