Francis Collins doesn’t get it

 
Carstonio
 
Avatar
 
 
Carstonio
Total Posts:  3208
Joined  26-04-2007
 
 
 
10 May 2009 19:28
 

An Evolution for Evangelicals?

To Collins, Darwin is a threat only if one thinks that God is an underachiever. Collins doesn’t happen to believe that. His study of genes has led him to conclude that God is both outside of nature and outside of time. He’s big, in other words. The idea that God would create the mechanism of evolution makes sense.

Trying to reconcile evolution with god-belief misses the larger problem, which is that the concept of gods is poor science. There may or may not be beings “outside of nature and outside of time” but any hypothesis that involves such beings is not testable or falsifiable. The reason to criticize Collins is not necessarily that he believes in a god, but that he treats the issue as exempt from normal scientific scrutiny. I can’t imagine Collins sitting silent if someone postulated that DNA had aspects outside of nature or time.

 
 
Avatar
 
 
eudemonia
Total Posts:  2492
Joined  05-04-2008
 
 
 
11 May 2009 06:32
 

Collins is like billions of others. The paradox is that any God hypothesis is poor, or nonexistent science, but to abstract it in non detectable dimension separate of sceince is purely imaginary and delusional.

Theism is a no win either way.

People believe because they want to believe, not because there is any proof that supports what they believe in exists.

 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  2136
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
11 May 2009 13:26
 
Carstonio - 10 May 2009 11:28 PM

An Evolution for Evangelicals?

To Collins, Darwin is a threat only if one thinks that God is an underachiever. Collins doesn’t happen to believe that. His study of genes has led him to conclude that God is both outside of nature and outside of time. He’s big, in other words. The idea that God would create the mechanism of evolution makes sense.

Trying to reconcile evolution with god-belief misses the larger problem, which is that the concept of gods is poor science. There may or may not be beings “outside of nature and outside of time” but any hypothesis that involves such beings is not testable or falsifiable. The reason to criticize Collins is not necessarily that he believes in a god, but that he treats the issue as exempt from normal scientific scrutiny. I can’t imagine Collins sitting silent if someone postulated that DNA had aspects outside of nature or time.

If we play the EXISTENCE movie backwards, so that the Big Bang breathes the universe back in to a point of nothing, can science call that BEFORE EXISTENCE ‘outside of nature and outside of time’?  This is a question, not an idea or opinion.

Buddhists sometimes use the expression, “The other side of the empty eon.”  Are they talking about previous Big Bangs and previous universes?  This is a question.  I don’t know what they are talking about.

Still, if nothing existed before the Big Bang, wouldn’t that give Collins his ‘empty eon’ outside of nature and outside of time?  Wouldn’t it give him a ‘scientific opportunity’ to suggest that this ‘nothing’ contained the seed of everything?

Thanks for calling attention to this article.  Interesting that some fundamentalists are looking for a way to have their God and Darwin too.  The part about fundamentalist kids suffering an identity crisis when they get to college; and the U.S. falling behind in the sciences because of the ‘influential millions’ who believe in the Bible version of creation is noteworthy.