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?

[Confused]

Confused wrote:

Is your issues mostly with the fact that he puts to rest creationism and lays out the fallacies of ID while also justifying why it will fail in the long run while losing many believers in the process?

Otseng:
Well, I wouldn't say that "he puts to rest creationism" since he doesn't even go into anything technical. But, yes, he does mischaracterize YEC and ID.

page 177 wrote:
Young Earth Creationsim does even more damage to faith, by demanding that belief in God requires assent to fundamentally flawed claims about the natural world.

I guess it would depend on what he's exactly referring to, but such a blanket statement cannot be applied to YEC.

To my knowledge, he refers to YEC in terms of still believing the earth to be only ~10,000 years old with species being created as they exist today. At least this would be mainstream YEC. YEC also continues to view the bible as a whole in a literalist view and refuses to even view anything that contradicts such things. However, the convergence of evidence shows the earth to be 4.5 billion years old and the existence of life on earth at least 100,000-150,000 years old (based on fossil record, population genetics, paleoarcheology, geology, etc). Current YEC reports vary from the methodology used to dertermine these is faulty to God placed these various fossilized records and artifical means of methodology in an attempt to test ones faith. Either way, YEC is discredited on its central tenet to begin with: the age of the earth and the sudden arrival of life on earth. But mostly he puts creationist to rest with ID since ID is nothing more than creationists attempts to validate a false science.

page 193 wrote:
ID potrays the Almighty as a clumsy Creator, having to intervene at regular intervals to fix the inadequacies of His own inital plan for generating the complexity of life.

I have no idea what he's referring to with "intervening at regular intervals".

He is referring to ARE's and the validation that one can accurately predict the exact location of genetic sequences in various species of DNA. In reference to the intervening at regular intervals, his position is that in order for species to evolve, as has been proven through the convergence of evidence, God must have had to regularly intervene to make the shift in mutations and adaptations as the environment changed so that a species could survive in its new environment as is seen in DNA. In other words, ID interjects supernatural interventions in places where science is unable to explain the gaps. However, science is filling in the gaps and every time it does, it discredits ID a bit more in which case ID finds a new way to interject itself. In his own words: " The ID would be refuted on grounds that one need not invoke intelligent causes when undirected natrual causes wil do: here Occams Razor would end ID, and it is in fact doing just that. He mostly however refers to the fact that as science continues to to reduce the ID claims of irreducible complexity. You cite the following:

page 191 wrote:

Flatworms possess a simple pigmented pit, containing light-sensitive cells that provide some directionality to their ability to percieve incoming photons.
It is not prohibitively difficult, given hundreds of millions of years, to contemplate how this system could have evolved into the modern mammalian eye, complete with light-sensing retina and light-focusing lens.
This is the standard evolutionary answer to the development of the eye, but "contemplate how" it could've arisen doesn't answer much.
Further, the author gives the illusion eyes started as a light sensitive pit and gradually evolved over hundreds of millions of years. But, as evidenced by the Cambrian Explosion, complex eyes popped up on the scene quite early on.

No, what he does is show how the complexity of the eye can be reduced to a more simple form. That was his purpose. To show how something that can be seen as irreducible complexity can and has been shown to be reducible to a more simple form. He does this with the bacterial flagellum as well. As well as the outer ear, the appendix, etc.

page 132 wrote:
A careful comparison of the genomes of the freshwater fish has identified a specific gene, EDA, who variants have repeatedly and independently appeared in a freshwater situation, resulting in a loss of the plates.

...

It is not hard to see how the difference between freshwater and saltwater sticklebacks could be extended, to generate all kinds of fish.

"It is not hard to see" is not a persuasive argument.

Further, the examples he cites is a "loss" of information. Whereas he extends this to account for a "gain" of information.

Here genetics come back into play. We can link stickleback freshwater and saltwater fish to be of the same ancestors, but as there are less predators in freshwater, the fish has begun to lose its plates that no longer serve a purpose. ther is no loss of information, it is adaptation.

I think you missed the main point of the entire book. Perhaps you considered it so simplistic you didn't view it in the same format I did. The point of this book was to show how creationists and ID are not science, conflict with science, conflict with the convergence of evidence, etc.

Dembski says science ID must convince us of its truth on its scientific merits. Overall it fails. Collins claims ID fits into the same category as the ancients using God to explain earthquakes which is what will lead to its demise. Its attempt to make an A into a non-A or naturalism into supernaturalism despite the overwhelming information to prove otherwise. His problem is with presenting ID and creationism as a science, in which it isnt.

[Confused]

Otseng:

Despite the issues you have presented, do you have an issue with biologos?

[otseng]

I think you missed the main point of the entire book. Perhaps you considered it so simplistic you didn't view it in the same format I did. The point of this book was to show how creationists and ID are not science, conflict with science, conflict with the convergence of evidence, etc.

Though it was one point of the book, it was not the main point.

Here is what I believe the main point of the book to be.

It is time to call a truce in the escalating war between science and spirit. The war was never really necessary. Like so many earthly wars, this one has been initiated and intensified by extremists on both sides, sounding alarms that predict imminent ruin unless the other side is vanquished. Science is not threatened by God; it is enhanced. God is most certainly not threatened by science; He made it all possible. So let us together seek to reclaim the solid ground of an intellectually and spiritually satisfying synthesiss of all great truths.

Despite the issues you have presented, do you have an issue with biologos?

Well, I disagree with BioLogos and do not subscribe to it based on some of the points I've already raised as well as some others. But, I did like the book and would be recommending it to others.

I totally agree that science is not threatend by God and vice-versa. The two can be reconciled. And I've reconciled it in my mind with my own synthesis of the data.

I think each person should come to their own conclusions of what to believe. Examine the data for themselves and build their own hypothesis. We should not be afraid of ideas that challenge our own, but welcome them. As long people can mutually respect each other, people should be allowed to disagree.

So, the goal shouldn't be to get everyone to agree, but for people to respect each other, no matter how far apart their ideas are.

[Confused]

I think you missed the main point of the entire book. Perhaps you considered it so simplistic you didn't view it in the same format I did. The point of this book was to show how creationists and ID are not science, conflict with science, conflict with the convergence of evidence, etc.

Though it was one point of the book, it was not the main point.

Here is what I believe the main point of the book to be.

It is time to call a truce in the escalating war between science and spirit. The war was never really necessary. Like so many earthly wars, this one has been initiated and intensified by extremists on both sides, sounding alarms that predict imminent ruin unless the other side is vanquished. Science is not threatened by God; it is enhanced. God is most certainly not threatened by science; He made it all possible. So let us together seek to reclaim the solid ground of an intellectually and spiritually satisfying synthesiss of all great truths.

Despite the issues you have presented, do you have an issue with biologos?

Well, I disagree with BioLogos and do not subscribe to it based on some of the points I've already raised as well as some others. But, I did like the book and would be recommending it to others.

I totally agree that science is not threatend by God and vice-versa. The two can be reconciled. And I've reconciled it in my mind with my own synthesis of the data.

I think each person should come to their own conclusions of what to believe. Examine the data for themselves and build their own hypothesis. We should not be afraid of ideas that challenge our own, but welcome them. As long people can mutually respect each other, people should be allowed to disagree.

So, the goal shouldn't be to get everyone to agree, but for people to respect each other, no matter how far apart their ideas are.

I don't dispute how you viewed the books main points. But I think that in reality, Collins pointed out that the longer religion holds on to beliefs that continue to undermine advancements in knowledge, it is dooming itself. He points out that as YEC continue to see science as evil and ID creationists continue to make a mockery with their God of gaps and attempts to force itself down the throats of society under the guise of religion, it is ultimately hurting religion itself. Collins focused mostly on DNA. As has heen been pointed out, this is facts. Christians have no issue convicting a rapist or murderer based on DNA, but then refute DNA in the realm of the Human Genome Project. You can't have it both ways. You can't say " I believe in this science in this circumstance but not the same science in this". Not when they are directly related.

I agree the goal should be to respect others views, but ID isn't allowing this to happen. They have time and time again bypassed science and went to the courts with the most damning judgement being that of the Dover judge ruling. Yet they still continue. Here is why I agree with Collins, religion is faith, not science, yet one can reconcile to keep them separate, but one cannot attempt to combine them.

[Confused]

Otseng:

I am sorrry to hear you disagree with biologos. It is by far the most neutral format I have seen and I think it distinctly put things in the order they belong. Leave science to explain the thing it was meant to explain: nature. Allow God to explain the supernatural as he was meant to be. But to close you mind to one or the other is to show ignorance. (IMHO).

[Confused]

I just finished reading The Language of God. Though I disagree with several of his points, I thought it was a pretty good book.

It's a very simple book to read. He doesn't present any technical information and it reads more like an autobiography.

Though it's subtitled, "A scientist presents evidence for belief", I don't really thought it contained much evidence for belief. And it seemed to primarily concentrate on the moral law as evidence.

I like how he attempts to reconcile faith and science. And though for the most part he attempts to present an olive branch to many groups, he does at times mischaracterize some.

Overall, I'd recommend reading this book for believers and especially non-believers. And I will be heartily recommending this book to a doctor I know who is a non-believer.

It sounds like he was writing to the 'lowest common demoninator'.. the person who is not well versed in theology/science/philosphy. Sometimes, a bit of mischaracterizing is needed to keep things simple enough that the average person without extra education can understand it.

How wrong you are. The only simplification he did was in explaining DNA and the Human Genome Project in a format that one with not a lot of knowledge in it could understand it. Yet I did not see any mischaracterization occuring. Have you read the book?

[otseng]

Christians have no issue convicting a rapist or murderer based on DNA, but then refute DNA in the realm of the Human Genome Project.

Christians are refuting DNA? I don't see that. Perhaps rejecting common descent, but that doesn't mean rejecting DNA.

I agree the goal should be to respect others views, but ID isn't allowing this to happen.

ID is not allowing this to happen?

Here is why I agree with Collins, religion is faith, not science, yet one can reconcile to keep them separate, but one cannot attempt to combine them.

This has only been a recent phenomenon since science has become naturalistic. However, this has not always been the case.

I am sorrry to hear you disagree with biologos.

No need to feel sorry just because I'm a skeptic.

It is by far the most neutral format I have seen and I think it distinctly put things in the order they belong.

Again, I like his approach and presentation, but that doesn't mean I agree with it.

But to close you mind to one or the other is to show ignorance. (IMHO)

Just because I don't agree with someone's position doesn't mean that I'm ignorant. I least I don't think so.

[Confused]

Christians have no issue convicting a rapist or murderer based on DNA, but then refute DNA in the realm of the Human Genome Project.

Christians are refuting DNA? I don't see that. Perhaps rejecting common descent, but that doesn't mean rejecting DNA.

I agree the goal should be to respect others views, but ID isn't allowing this to happen.

ID is not allowing this to happen?

Here is why I agree with Collins, religion is faith, not science, yet one can reconcile to keep them separate, but one cannot attempt to combine them.

This has only been a recent phenomenon since science has become naturalistic. However, this has not always been the case.

I am sorrry to hear you disagree with biologos.

No need to feel sorry just because I'm a skeptic.

It is by far the most neutral format I have seen and I think it distinctly put things in the order they belong.

Again, I like his approach and presentation, but that doesn't mean I agree with it.

But to close you mind to one or the other is to show ignorance. (IMHO)

Just because I don't agree with someone's position doesn't mean that I'm ignorant. I least I don't think so.

Please don't misunderstand my tone in my words. They arent' meant to me condemning except in the case of ID. First off, DNA is DNA. Common descent is nothing more than ancestry. You would have no issue of it tracing you back to your great great great great great great great grandmother (since mtDNA lasts the longest it is easier to find existing maternal DNA). The fact is that we dont' know what our original ancestors looked like and the bible doesn't imply it either. But just because we share a common ancestor with the great apes doesnt mean we used to be one. That is all he is saying.

In regards to ID, I am finding many have different concepts of what ID is. The ID Collins and myself and Shermer etc... write about are those who 1) use the God of gaps still to explain the areas science can't yet, but are unraveling such as irrecucible complexity. 2) continue to pass itself off as science even after being ruled it is non-science and in failing to convince the education system to teach creationism under the guise of ID have now bogged the courts in attempts to force teacher to teach it by stating it deserves equal time to be taught as evolution.

I don't mean to imply you are ignorant. That statement is a generalization and I should have worded it that way. My apologies. But I do believe that if God existed then He would expect us to use the tools He has given us. Not ignore them. Allow science to do what it was intended, explain nature. Allow God to do as He was intended, explaint the supernatural (what science can't now or may never be able to explain as it wasnt' meant to explain, Collins uses a good example: the moral law).

[otseng]

I don't mean to imply you are ignorant. That statement is a generalization and I should have worded it that way. My apologies.

No worries.

But I do believe that if God existed then He would expect us to use the tools He has given us. Not ignore them. Allow science to do what it was intended, explain nature. Allow God to do as He was intended, explaint the supernatural (what science can't now or may never be able to explain as it wasnt' meant to explain, Collins uses a good example: the moral law).

I agree that God expects us to use our brains and think rationally. We should avoid to simply say "God did it" when we run into a problem. Yet, on the other hand, if evidence points to the supernatural, I don't think it should be dismissed either.

Here is where the fundamental difference lies. Naturalists categorically reject any supernatural explanation. Supranaturalists allow for both natural and supernatural possibilities.

Naturalists have defined science to only include naturalism. So, they have excluded any supernaturalism by definition only. It is not by any proof that supernaturalism does not exist that it is rejected. In essence, it is by faith that they reject the supernatural.

Again, science has not always been this way. Prior to Darwin's days, the supernatural was not excluded by scientists.

We should follow where the evidence leads us, whether it be natural or supernatural. Neither should be assumed beforehand.

[Confused]

I don't mean to imply you are ignorant. That statement is a generalization and I should have worded it that way. My apologies.

No worries.

But I do believe that if God existed then He would expect us to use the tools He has given us. Not ignore them. Allow science to do what it was intended, explain nature. Allow God to do as He was intended, explaint the supernatural (what science can't now or may never be able to explain as it wasnt' meant to explain, Collins uses a good example: the moral law).

I agree that God expects us to use our brains and think rationally. We should avoid to simply say "God did it" when we run into a problem. Yet, on the other hand, if evidence points to the supernatural, I don't think it should be dismissed either.

Here is where the fundamental difference lies. Naturalists categorically reject any supernatural explanation. Supranaturalists allow for both natural and supernatural possibilities.

Naturalists have defined science to only include naturalism. So, they have excluded any supernaturalism by definition only. It is not by any proof that supernaturalism does not exist that it is rejected. In essence, it is by faith that they reject the supernatural.

Again, science has not always been this way. Prior to Darwin's days, the supernatural was not excluded by scientists.

We should follow where the evidence leads us, whether it be natural or supernatural. Neither should be assumed beforehand.

As I stated on a thread Furrowed Brow just started in this forum, ID seems to have no clear definition. It seems to me that many people assume it to mean many things but no one clearly states what it is. It appears to me, from both Collins and Shermers books, the ID is attempting to do just as you claim science is. It is attempting to deny naturalism when it finds it convienient and accept supernaturalism when it is convenient.

Perhaps what is needed is an actual definition of the most current ID and its tenets. Though this isn't the place for it because personally, I like biologos. I think it offers much more credibility and options. But I just got the Natures Destiny book in so perhaps I might see things different. Should have it read by friday at latest.