Scientist Finds God - Speaking Tours To Follow - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-12-2006, 03:04 AM   #1
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:24 AM
Scientist Finds God - Speaking Tours To Follow

Quote:
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”.
Quote:
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.”
Quote:
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.
link

The argument of design even extending into the softer form of theistic evolution is not a proof for the existence of God, life and humanity arose from purely mechanistic processes occuring within what may be an infinite series of particle permutations, while a tremendously complex system this does not infer design, the self-organising nature and feedback mechanisms that enable such complexity in the absence of a guiding hand are inherent in the evidence.

The idea that mankind will not continue to evolve is also a bit too speculative, we are not forever cut off from natural selection and a more artifical intervention will eventually take place. When mankind is on Mars there will be divergence.

Believing is not as good as knowing. The supernatural interfering into a natural world is still a logical problem even if you believe in miracles.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-12-2006, 03:20 AM   #2
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 01:24 PM
PROOF will come when one dies.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 06-12-2006, 03:21 AM   #3
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:24 AM
Well a good many people have died and we don't see a proof.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-12-2006, 03:33 AM   #4
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 01:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Well a good many people have died and we don't see a proof.
You're right. I should have made that a little more clearer and said proof comes to those when they die.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 06-12-2006, 04:50 AM   #5
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 01:24 PM
Wanderer, do you ever entertain theories such as ancient astronauts, or would you need some sort of undeniable evidence to even consider it? I guess, I'm asking if you are open to possibilties outside of the science we currently understand.
Or whatever...
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 06-12-2006, 05:11 AM   #6
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:24 AM
Acutally that raises a great point, when I was 12 I read a lot of that sort of stuff and it was a brilliant lesson in skepticism, every piece of evidence that is used to give support to ancient astronauts is either misinterperated, fabricated or non-existent. These "theories" distort the facts and lack scholarly rigour, they fail to account for things and introduce unprovable elements to explain things that can be better explained with conventional theory. If you are not skeptical in approaching extraordinary claims then you will be manipulated, just look at the recent issue with the so-called "Bosnian pyramids" (read geological formations).

Claims have to be falsifiable to be considered scientific, in the case of gravity for instance the theory that Newton used was disproved by the observation that light and gravity are not instantaneous phenomena. In the case of the afterlife there is no evidence for the existence of a metaphysical conciousness - a soul - for all intensive purposes it does not exist any more than the flying spaghetti monster. An afterlife cannot exist for human beings in the universe as we understand it, it would violate the conservation of energy and matter if we can't quantify it, now in this case we have the most sensible or least mad way to gel the theological with the real world by accepting divine intervention in the evolution or humanity, but that "theory" is only as valid as it's parts and while evolution and the emergence of new forms through mutation and selection works very well divine intervention however slight lacks any evidence whatsoever, there is no independent evidence for it and alll we have to go on are at times contradictory accounts of a deity/deities that offer no proof rather explanations that have since proven false.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-12-2006, 07:11 AM   #7
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 02:24 PM
"Theistic evolution," in itself, isn't bad. It's essentially a full acceptance of the scientific process, which is then attributed to God. This is in contrast to "intelligent design," which disregards and rewrites large parts of science to conform to religion.

The key phrase to the part about man not evolving further is that it is "his version of the theory." I see no reason why "theistic evolution" would necessarily toss out evidence of further human evolution, if science found it. After all, it would then be argued that it was "God's will" that we evolve further.

As long as Collins' personal religious beliefs do not interfere with his work, then he's free to believe whatever he wants.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-10-2006, 06:09 PM   #8
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 12:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
" This is in contrast to "intelligent design," which disregards and rewrites large parts of science to conform to religion.

Melon
Melon, I was searching through some older threads and I came across this comment. Can you (or anyone else who thinks this) please clarify this statement? That is not what I understand ID to be at all.

Thanks!
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 07-10-2006, 06:22 PM   #9
Babyface
 
MacDaddyDuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 7
Local Time: 01:24 PM
We can't prove anything...that's why it's called faith! I believe with every ounce of my being that God lovingly and magnificently created this world for His glory and that he is the one true God.
__________________
MacDaddyDuff is offline  
Old 07-10-2006, 07:04 PM   #10
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
vaz02's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: manchester
Posts: 7,447
Local Time: 07:24 PM
I think gods's arse must be soaked, considering all this ass licking.

But seriously, is this guy gonna profit from this tour?
__________________
vaz02 is offline  
Old 07-10-2006, 07:47 PM   #11
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
trevster2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,330
Local Time: 03:54 PM
"The God I believe in isn't short of cash, Mister" -Bono, Rattle and Hum

Not that I believe in God or any other fairy tales, just for the record
__________________
trevster2k is offline  
Old 07-10-2006, 08:47 PM   #12
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 02:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
Melon, I was searching through some older threads and I came across this comment. Can you (or anyone else who thinks this) please clarify this statement? That is not what I understand ID to be at all.
The difference between evolutionary creationism (derisively known as "theistic evolution" by creationists/IDers) is that it accepts science in its totality, while attributing it to God. In practice, this means that Catholic schools teach science in its totality, including natural selection. No mention of God is required or needed (as, after all, religion class is part of your day too).

"Intelligent design" goes out of its way to include God into its "science," and completely rejects natural selection. It then comes up with "evidence" for God, as if His existence can be scientifically proven. It also will go as far as to engage in pseudoscience to create "evidence" for God, which is also used as "evidence" against natural selection.

There's a substantial difference between the two, if you go beneath the surface. Considering my religious background, I have never needed to feel guilty about believing in evolution, because they were never seen as being in conflict with faith.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-10-2006, 10:20 PM   #13
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 12:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MacDaddyDuff
We can't prove anything...that's why it's called faith! I believe with every ounce of my being that God lovingly and magnificently created this world for His glory and that he is the one true God.
Actually, I think there is quite a bit of logical and scientific data pointing toward God’s existence. It seems an increasing number of scientists throughout this century are publicly acknowledging the metaphysical implications of both the ‘Big Bang’ and the ‘fine-tuning’ (ID) characteristics of the universe. Here is a sample of some of the brightest minds of the last century and their take of Intelligent Design. They can hardly be confused as simpletons or religious nuts.

Albert Einstein (Nobel Prize 1921): “Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.”

Paul Davies (former professor of theoretical physics at the University of Adelaide): “Through my scientific work I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as a brute fact. I cannot believe that our existence in this universe is a mere quirk of fate, an accident of history, an incidental blip in the great cosmic drama.”

Sir Fred Hoyle: “A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in Nature.”

Allan Rex Sandage (famous astronomer, dubbed the “Grand Old Man of Cosmology” by the New York Times, and a former atheist): “It was my science that drove me to the conclusion that the world is much more complicated than can be explained by science. It was only through the supernatural that I could understand the mystery of existence.”

Dr Arno Penzias (Nobel Prize-winning astrophysicist): “I invite you to examine the snapshot provided by half a century’s worth of astrophysical data and see what the pieces of the universe actually look like...In order to achieve consistency with our observations we must...assume not only creation of matter and energy out of nothing, but creation of space and time as well. The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.”

Professor Vera Kistiakowski (professor of physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and former president of the Association of Women in Science): “The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine.”

Dr Stephen Meyer (a geophysicist with a Cambridge doctorate in origin-of-life biology): “If it’s true there’s a beginning to the universe, as modern cosmologists now agree, then this implies a cause that transcends the universe. If the laws of physics are fine-tuned to permit life, as contemporary physicists are discovering, then perhaps there’s a designer who fine-tuned them. If there’s information in the cell, as molecular biology shows, then this suggests intelligent design. To get life going in the first place would have required biological information; the implications point beyond the material realm to a prior intelligent cause.”
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 07-10-2006, 10:34 PM   #14
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 12:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


"Intelligent design" goes out of its way to include God into its "science," and completely rejects natural selection. It then comes up with "evidence" for God, as if His existence can be scientifically proven. It also will go as far as to engage in pseudoscience to create "evidence" for God, which is also used as "evidence" against natural selection.


Melon
I have been a "theistic evolutionist" for quite some time. It was a nice fit for both my faith and "scientific"side. However, there are some real compelling arguments for ID that I had not read before recently. I have to say, I am really starting to lean in that direction. There are now numerous scientists that very skeptical about Darwinism (both atheist and theist). The arguments they are making a quite convincing. And I am not talking about your seminary biology professors – I am referring to Nobel laureates and physics professors at major universities. Not all necessarily support ID, but they are beginning to look for new theories for “how did we get here” because Evolution is not standing up to honest scrutiny.

I took so much for granted in college. I took Anthropology and my professor seemed so confident, I dared not doubt him. However, looking back – there are some TREMENDOUS holes in the various theories of evolution they I never knew existed. But being a bright eyed 19 year old, I just assumed that because these professors were smart enough to be PhD’s – then they must be right.

But now, I am reading books by men and women much more knowledgeable than my Anthro 101 professor, and they make his “evidence” look about as flimsy as a Christian standing on a corner saying the Hurricane Katrina means that Jesus is coming back this year!
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 07-14-2006, 11:27 PM   #15
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:24 AM
It always strikes me as funny that nobody who thinks about evolution being the means of life diversifying ever actually uses the term Evolutionist. The majority of scientists think that evolutionary biology is the best means to explain life, and that majority doesn't mean shit because ideally science is not about consensus (thats politics) it is about explaining the observations and evolutionary biology (with it's different theories and mechanisms that are fields of research to this day) has a strong confidence level as it explains the evidence effectively.

The state of affairs is that Charles Darwin came up with natural selection acting upon heritable variations and that since then his theory has been validated by discoveries throughout all of the biological sciences. It is wrong to suggest that the theory of evolution is being refuted and blasted down more and more - the scientific community is all about breaking down poor science through the systems of peer review and the truth is that basic concept of natural selection has been validated and we have a very high threshold of confidence (science is never 100% - it is always falsifiable). The believer has to have their God sit in their gaps of knowledge, if you keep those posts as wide as possible then your faith is going to be protected.

If somebody discovered proof of intelligent design then they would be celebrated immensely, it would be a paradigm shift and would change the very way that we view life on Earth - this has not happened, it may happen one day - I would definitely be surprised if it did though.

Irreducable complexity is the justification of ID - the concept that life has a fundamental level of complexity to exist and could not have arisen from an earlier form at some point. The fallacy is that the examples that are used such as flagellum do have earlier forms. It is as if we find complex examples and then rather than pursue a full investigation stop and resign to a state of willful abandon calling the feature designed only to later conceed that a particular example was an evolved trait when more evidence comes to light.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com