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]

Great anectode FB. "Tarot readings" also pull the same sort of psychological levers in people. Countless intentional and not-so-intentional tricks are ready and waiting to catch us all out. The notion that there is a supernatural component to the world is exceptionally prevalent - but we could readily assemble a vast catalogue of human misperceptions that are routinely mistaken for supernatural goings-on. If people have a worldview that admits even the slightest degree of supernaturality then Confused's bridge takes on its ghostly shape.

If there really was a supernatural dimension to the world don't we think that it would have been harnessed by the industrial-military sectors long ago? It has always had a commercial expression in the leisure and entertainment industry - but that says it all for me.

One of my own thought-experiments concerns the spooky feelings one invariably gets when entering the classic "spooky environment". Take an otherwise deserted graveyard for example: Add some distant thunder, rustling leaves etc. and I'll bet many people sense being in the presence of some kind of "external force field". but what if we had inadvertently wandered onto a film set with every tombstone a prop? I feel confident that this experiment, if carried out, would convince the subject simply on the basis that a weaker version takes place when simply staying at home in front of a TV horror movie. I also like to think of the superstition that surrounds objects or buildings of "special significance". Is holy water any different to ordinary water at the molecular level? Do the bones of a Saint decay any differently to a Sinner?

But you're right, people won't thank you for pointing out how much imagination is employed to "spice-up" the world (as if it was actually in need of extra seasoning!).

[QED]

Sorry Confused - getting off-topic here!

[Confused]

Sorry Confused - getting off-topic here!

And you call yourself a moderator!!!! Hmmm, the indignation.

Just fooling around.

I think you had a point with the supernatural though. Most "haunted" places consist of 90% of hyping up the person to think a place is haunted, then the imagination uses the other 10% to take the normal and make it paranormal. The creaking floors, normal pipe sounds. etc.....

The problem that exists is how do you prove the supernatural doesn't exist? If we can't prove it doesn't, then can we say my bridge can't have a ghostly shape?

Mostly, what Collins was referring to in his book, when he said: Leave the natural to science and the supernatural to God., he was referring to how did life originate (you have to admit that abiogenesis is relatively weak) and what happens to the consciousness after death. He may allude to some degree of how the universe was perhaps "fine tuned" for life, but doens't rely heavily on it.

[Confused]

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.

I am glad you enjoyed it. Collins is a scientist, so his degree of theological writings stems mostly from his faith. What I respected about him was not only his ability to put the human genome into laymens terms so that most could understand how we can't refute our ancestors, but also the fact that he could maintain such a high degree of respectability in his field, yet still maintain a level of faith that didn't bias the objectivity of his research.

I admit, I thoroughly enjoyed the fact that he respectfully said that anyone who still argued creationism or "intelligent design" or even better "YEC" was a freakin idiot (he used nice terms though) and was ultimately contributing to the slow dissemination of religion as a whole. He essentially said that showing ignorance about the world in which we live shows your ignorance about the maker who created it (though he didn't say the maker).

[QED]

I think you had a point with the supernatural though. Most "haunted" places consist of 90% of hyping up the person to think a place is haunted, then the imagination uses the other 10% to take the normal and make it paranormal. The creaking floors, normal pipe sounds. etc.....

Is it reasonable to say "most" though? Look at the data: the mechanism for misperception is well understood. The mechanism for "ghosts", a potential product of those misperceptions is not. Surely the only substance to the supernatural comes through our ability to invent notions that can't be disproved?

The problem that exists is how do you prove the supernatural doesn't exist? If we can't prove it doesn't, then can we say my bridge can't have a ghostly shape?

People's opinions are very much influenced by what gets a "foot in the door". For many the door is opened by ghost stories - yet look at the data again. Thanks to mobile phones, nowadays millions of people have a camera at hand wherever they are. We can see this from the on-the-scene images coming out of nearly every newsworthy incident. Ghosts are now severely underrepresented (ironically it was the invention of the camera that saw a huge increase in the reports of ghosts -- thanks, of course to the intrinsic susceptibility of photographic media to multiple exposures).

Mostly, what Collins was referring to in his book, when he said: Leave the natural to science and the supernatural to God., he was referring to how did life originate (you have to admit that abiogenesis is relatively weak) and what happens to the consciousness after death. He may allude to some degree of how the universe was perhaps "fine tuned" for life, but doens't rely heavily on it.

Again, there are known psychological susceptibilities to matters like these. They are gaps in knowledge that are filled by rules of thumb acquired through the evolution of human cognition. There are many fascinating studies of the human perception of other conscious minds for example. As you know, normal conscious thinkers make models of other thinkers in order to understand what's going on "inside their heads". The one thing that's impossible to model is "no consciousness". The reply "oh, he knows he's dead alright!" rings out all too frequently as does our propensity to ascribe thoughtful agency to unthinking objects like machinery that's being difficult.

Abiogenesis is another classic gap. Why must it indicate the supernatural? There's a highly effective and well-understood principle within natural selection that can tease out a persistent existence in things capable of self-replication. Notice this statement makes no mention of how sophisticated these replicators need be. More elaborate theories are simply unnecessary.

[Confused]

QED:

Is it reasonable to say "most" though? Look at the data: the mechanism for misperception is well understood. The mechanism for "ghosts", a potential product of those misperceptions is not. Surely the only substance to the supernatural comes through our ability to invent notions that can't be disproved?

Isnt' it time for you to get sick again???????????????

OK: Perhaps you are correct, however, I can't say with 100% certainty that they are invented by our imagination. I can say that until I see one, I don't see myself accepting the premise that they exist. However, I can't say that hauntings such as the one the movie "the entity" is based on don't exist. I can only say that it is illogical to believe that they do. \

People's opinions are very much influenced by what gets a "foot in the door". For many the door is opened by ghost stories - yet look at the data again. Thanks to mobile phones, nowadays millions of people have a camera at hand wherever they are. We can see this from the on-the-scene images coming out of nearly every newsworthy incident. Ghosts are now severely underrepresented (ironically it was the invention of the camera that saw a huge increase in the reports of ghosts -- thanks, of course to the intrinsic susceptibility of photographic media to multiple exposures).

Sure, and the the photographs are not only of the greatest quality, but X swears that Y who swears the Z, who took the picture, saw it with his own two eyes.

Again, there are known psychological susceptibilities to matters like these. They are gaps in knowledge that are filled by rules of thumb acquired through the evolution of human cognition. There are many fascinating studies of the human perception of other conscious minds for example. As you know, normal conscious thinkers make models of other thinkers in order to understand what's going on "inside their heads". The one thing that's impossible to model is "no consciousness". The reply "oh, he knows he's dead alright!" rings out all too frequently as does our propensity to ascribe thoughtful agency to unthinking objects like machinery that's being difficult.

True.

Abiogenesis is another classic gap. Why must it indicate the supernatural? There's a highly effective and well-understood principle within natural selection that can tease out a persistent existence in things capable of self-replication. Notice this statement makes no mention of how sophisticated these replicators need be. More elaborate theories are simply unnecessary.

I don't think it indicates the supernatural. I agree that most elaborate theories may be unecessary. But the quandry still exists, how to life begin?

[QED]

QED:

Is it reasonable to say "most" though? Look at the data: the mechanism for misperception is well understood. The mechanism for "ghosts", a potential product of those misperceptions is not. Surely the only substance to the supernatural comes through our ability to invent notions that can't be disproved?

Isnt' it time for you to get sick again???????????????

Dear Confused, thank you for your kind wishes

OK: Perhaps you are correct, however, I can't say with 100% certainty that they are invented by our imagination. I can say that until I see one, I don't see myself accepting the premise that they exist. However, I can't say that hauntings such as the one the movie "the entity" is based on don't exist. I can only say that it is illogical to believe that they do.

I would say that logic can be a route to certainty. But I think you'll find that certainty is a political concept. Nothing tests reality quite like money and the money is on there being no ghosts. If that sounds rather oblique to you, then I apologise. The proof of the pudding is very much in the eating and if ghosts were at all real I think the industry around them would look very different to how it does.

Sure, and the the photographs are not only of the greatest quality, but X swears that Y who swears the Z, who took the picture, saw it with his own two eyes.

Never mind what people say, If images of ghosts can be captured on silver nitrate then they can also be captured on CCD imagers in phones - and hence evidence should now be pouring in. My point here is that we are now equipped with a powerful new tool that side-steps the traditional problem of hearsay, now-you-see-me-now-you-don't, type events. I'm labouring over this quite a bit because the more we can declutter the world of mistaken human perceptions, the more progress we can make in resolving the ambiguities we have created for ourselves by postulating supernatural causes for things.

Abiogenesis is another classic gap. Why must it indicate the supernatural? There's a highly effective and well-understood principle within natural selection that can tease out a persistent existence in things capable of self-replication. Notice this statement makes no mention of how sophisticated these replicators need be. More elaborate theories are simply unnecessary.

I don't think it indicates the supernatural. I agree that most elaborate theories may be unecessary. But the quandry still exists, how to life begin?

Why is it a quandry? Look at some spec of existing life. It is not wrong to say that it is an arrangment of atoms. It is a viable configuration of atoms assembled to a recipe. The recipe book has been added to little-by-little over a very long period of time with each new entry written by the product of the previous recipe -- and we can clearly see that the earliest recipes were much simpler than they are today.

The only problem is that we can't read the first few pages to see what the very first recipes were. But why should we worry about this? If we feel compelled to introduce a supernatural hand it is only because we think random chemistry has no chance of assembling anything capable of self replication. But I doubt if too many chemists would be that pessimistic. Self replicating molecules such as amino adenosine triacid ester have been synthesised (and hastily dismissed by creationists) demonstrating at least the principle of what is an overwhelmingly probable natural process in an unfathomably large state-space for random trials.

[Confused]

QED:

Dear Confused, thank you for your kind wishes

I know, bad girl. Sore attempt at avoiding the inferiority complex. By bag, and apologies.


QED:

The only problem is that we can't read the first few pages to see what the very first recipes were. But why should we worry about this?

In the grand scheme of things on Earth, it isn't all that relevant. But if we had those first few pages, perhaps we could determine if the initial recipe could have been altered in any way to make life possible on other planets from something other than a carbon base. If such could be determined, not only could we dispell the notion that life on earth is the only life out there, but we could focus our searches on places that might support life made of this alternative base. Of course, disproving the anthropocentric view would be a bonus.

[QED]

In the grand scheme of things on Earth, it isn't all that relevant. But if we had those first few pages, perhaps we could determine if the initial recipe could have been altered in any way to make life possible on other planets from something other than a carbon base. If such could be determined, not only could we dispell the notion that life on earth is the only life out there, but we could focus our searches on places that might support life made of this alternative base. Of course, disproving the anthropocentric view would be a bonus.

Carbon naturally forms into very long chains that attach to just about every conceivable combination of elements. DNA is of course the most widely known example of such a long-chain molecule. Going through the periodic table it soon becomes pretty obvious that Carbon is the most probable base for the complex information-bearing structures we call life. Even the cheerleaders for Silicon are having to admit that their favoured element might soon have to make way for Carbon in electronic applications.

[Confused]

In the grand scheme of things on Earth, it isn't all that relevant. But if we had those first few pages, perhaps we could determine if the initial recipe could have been altered in any way to make life possible on other planets from something other than a carbon base. If such could be determined, not only could we dispell the notion that life on earth is the only life out there, but we could focus our searches on places that might support life made of this alternative base. Of course, disproving the anthropocentric view would be a bonus.

Carbon naturally forms into very long chains that attach to just about every conceivable combination of elements. DNA is of course the most widely known example of such a long-chain molecule. Going through the periodic table it soon becomes pretty obvious that Carbon is the most probable base for the complex information-bearing structures we call life. Even the cheerleaders for Silicon are having to admit that their favoured element might soon have to make way for Carbon in electronic applications.

Careful, FDA in US just re-approved use of silicone for cheerleaders, so they may prefer it over saline. On the flip side, cheerleader can throw out the silicone BOB when they tire of them and not have to worry about unwanted pregnancy or complicated divorces. So perhaps silicone is superior to its carbon counterparts.