Frances Collins concept of God

[joshua 1 9]

There seems to be a lot of talk about Frances Collins because he was director of the National Human Genome Research Institute. So I though we would take a look at a statement he made about what looks like randomness to us yet "God also had the plan". I would take issue with his statement that God is outside of nature. Maybe what Collins is referring to is that on a Quantum level there are different laws at work.

"If God is real, and I believe he is, then he is outside of nature. He is, therefore, not limited by the laws of nature in the way that we are. He's not limited by time. In the very moment of that flash in which the universe was created, an unimaginable burst of energy, God also had the plan of how that would coalesce into stars and galaxies, planets, and how life would arrive on a small planet near the outer rim of a spiral galaxy. And ultimately, over hundreds of millions of years, give rise to creatures with intelligence and in whom he could infuse this search for him and this knowledge of good and evil. And all of that happened in his mind in the blink of an eye. While it may seem to us that this whole process has the risk of randomness and, therefore, an unpredictable outcome, that was not the case for God."
Read more at http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Scien...tific-Adventures.aspx?p=2#GPkPct83fvkUQrAo.99

 

[SteveB28]

As I said in the other thread, Collins believes that your god was behind the process of evolution.

So what? The key message from Collins is that he accepts unquestioningly that the process of evolution by natural selection is real, no matter who he thinks caused it.

 

[lesliedellow]

I would take issue with his statement that God is outside of nature.

If you really mean that, which I doubt, Collins is an orthodox Christian, and you are not. God cannot be a part of his own creation.

Apart from that, I don't see anything very controversial in what he said - at least from a theistic perspective.

 

[joshua 1 9]

If you really mean that, which I doubt, Collins is an orthodox Christian, and you are not. God cannot be a part of his own creation.

Apart from that, I don't see anything very controversial in what he said - at least from a theistic perspective.

Yes, I was never really orthodox. The closest I came was Episcopalian and in this day and age that is light years apart from orthodox.

 

[joshua 1 9]

As I said in the other thread, Collins believes that your god was behind the process of evolution.

So what? The key message from Collins is that he accepts unquestioningly that the process of evolution by natural selection is real, no matter who he thinks caused it.

Collins explains how God can have a plan and still work through what appears to us to be a random process. God is a Master at Math and He does not make mistakes or errors. Evolutionists are basing their theory on what they call junk DNA when in fact Science is able to show that Junk DNA is not JUNK at all and that everything has a Divine plan and purpose. The so called Junk is what actually regulates the DNA. Collins tells us that DNA is the Language of God and every day we better understand this Language and How God uses DNA to Create.

 

[SteveB28]

Collins explains how God can have a plan and still work through what appears to us to be a random process.

Evolution is NOT a random process. Mutations are random (although, we are able to calculate the rate of mutation for various species, so it could be argued that it's not entirely random). However, the 'back end' of evolution is the process of natural selection and that is anything but random in nature. Imagine tomatoes on a conveyor belt, awaiting bottling. The sizes of the tomatoes is largely a random function, but the holes through which the tomatoes of the right size must drop is not. Natural selection is the equivalent of those size holes.

God is a Master at Math and He does not make mistakes or errors. Evolutionists are basing their theory on what they call junk DNA when in fact Science is able to show that Junk DNA is not JUNK at all and that everything has a Divine plan and purpose.

Utter rubbish. "Science" says no such thing. Wishful creationists say those things.

The so called Junk is what actually regulates the DNA.

More drivel.

Collins tells us that DNA is the Language of God and every day we better understand this Language and How God uses DNA to Create.

But, as has been repeated endlessly, it doesn't affect his acceptance of the theory.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Utter rubbish. "Science" says no such thing. Wishful creationists say those things.

Your theory maybe wishful thinking on your part but math shows that the random theory is impossible. Hoyle who happens not to be a Creationist showed that the math you propose is impossible. Hoyle is best know for his junk yard theory. As Collins says: God has a plan and a purpose, if your able to see that or not. Actually Natural Selection could very well be a part of God's plan. The weakness in the theory is in the need for variation and something to select. That is the part that is just not very well understood right now but they are making progress through research on the DNA. The evidence is beginning to show that all the variation ever needed was there in the Beginning when "God saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was very good." When something is "very good" that means you do not have to add anything to it.

 

[SteveB28]

Your theory maybe wishful thinking on your part but math shows that the random theory is impossible.

I don't believe you. Show me the mathematics. Not "someone says...." Show me the numbers!

The weakness in the theory is in the need for variation and something to select.

So now you are back to asserting that there are no mutations from which to select.

You are simply fundamentally wrong. You carry several dozen unique mutations in your genome. We can measure them!

 

[joshua 1 9]

Show me the mathematics.

Do you got have 5 (five) minutes?

 

[SteveB28]

Do you got have 5 (five) minutes?

No. YOU make the assertion, YOU show me the numbers! This is a DISCUSSION forum.

 

[joshua 1 9]

No. YOU make the assertion, YOU show me the numbers! This is a DISCUSSION forum.

No you are not willing to invest five min of your time? Then there is nothing I can do to help you.

 

[SteveB28]

No you are not willing to invest five min of your time? Then there is nothing I can do to help you.

You can 'help' by presenting YOUR argument........if you can think of one.

YOU say that mathematics proves evolutionary theory impossible. Fine, either present the mathematics or admit that you haven't a clue.

 

[Jimmy D]

Collins explains how God can have a plan and still work through what appears to us to be a random process. God is a Master at Math and He does not make mistakes or errors. Evolutionists are basing their theory on what they call junk DNA when in fact Science is able to show that Junk DNA is not JUNK at all and that everything has a Divine plan and purpose. The so called Junk is what actually regulates the DNA. Collins tells us that DNA is the Language of God and every day we better understand this Language and How God uses DNA to Create.

Collins is one of those 'evolutionists', he agrees with mainstream ideas about evolution and common descent, if you are trying to set him apart to justify your own beliefs you have failed. Francis Collins has reconciled his beliefs with evidenced reality and is respected for it, maybe you should follow his example. He certainly doesn't agree with bible literalism or inerrancy, I suggest you see what he's got to say about it.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Collins is one of those 'evolutionists', he agrees with mainstream ideas about evolution and common descent, if you are trying to set him apart to justify your own beliefs you have failed. Francis Collins has reconciled his beliefs with evidenced reality and is respected for it, maybe you should follow his example. He certainly doesn't agree with bible literalism or inerrancy, I suggest you see what he's got to say about it.

The main point to what Collins is saying is that God had the plan all along of how everything would turn out. There is no ambiguity about that. So I can go along with Collins if you can.

"But I have no difficulty putting that together with what I believe as a Christian because I believe that God had a plan to create creatures with whom he could have fellowship, in whom he could inspire [the] moral law, in whom he could infuse the soul, and who he would give free will as a gift for us to make decisions about our own behavior, a gift which we oftentimes utilize to do the wrong thing.

I believe God used the mechanism of evolution to achieve that goal. And while that may seem to us who are limited by this axis of time as a very long, drawn-out process, it wasn't long and drawn-out to God. And it wasn't random to God.

[He] had the plan all along of how that would turn out. There was no ambiguity about that."


Read more at http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Scien...cientific-Adventures.aspx#EUboAD8dulXaI0FE.99

 

[joshua 1 9]

You can 'help' by presenting YOUR argument........if you can think of one.

I already did that and you made the choice to ignore the response and disregard it.

 

[Jimmy D]

The main point to what Collins is saying is that God had the plan all along of how everything would turn out. There is no ambiguity about that. So I can go along with Collins if you can.

"But I have no difficulty putting that together with what I believe as a Christian because I believe that God had a plan to create creatures with whom he could have fellowship, in whom he could inspire [the] moral law, in whom he could infuse the soul, and who he would give free will as a gift for us to make decisions about our own behavior, a gift which we oftentimes utilize to do the wrong thing.

I believe God used the mechanism of evolution to achieve that goal. And while that may seem to us who are limited by this axis of time as a very long, drawn-out process, it wasn't long and drawn-out to God. And it wasn't random to God.

[He] had the plan all along of how that would turn out. There was no ambiguity about that."


Read more at http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Scien...cientific-Adventures.aspx#EUboAD8dulXaI0FE.99

That's fine Joshua, I would take no issue with any of that (obviously I don't believe it myself being an atheist ) but I wouldn't attempt any sort of debate about it. I don't understand though why you can't also go along with the theories of mainstream science like Collins does, he has spent his life studying biology and knows that the evidence for the TOE is undeniable. I realize it would be difficult for you to abandon some of your core beliefs but you must be at least open to fact that maybe your interpretaion of the Bible is erroneous?

http://www.pewforum.org/2008/04/17/the-evidence-for-belief-an-interview-with-francis-collins/

"The whole area of hermeneutics – the effort to try to read Scripture in a way that represents, as best one can, what the real meaning was intended to be – requires more sophistication than simply saying the most literal interpretation of every verse has to be correct.

One can look at Genesis 1-2, for instance, and see that there is not just one but two stories of the creation of humanity, and those stories do not quite agree with each other. That alone ought to be reason enough to argue that the literal interpretation of every verse, in isolation from the rest of the Bible, can’t really be correct. Otherwise, the Bible is contradicting itself.

I take great comfort looking back through time, particularly at the writings of Augustine, who was obsessed by trying to understand Genesis and wrote no less than five books about it. Augustine ultimately concluded that no human being really was going to be able to interpret the meaning of the creation story. Certainly Augustine would have argued that the current ultra-literal interpretations that lead to young earth creationism are not required by the text, and would have warned that such a rigid interpretation, regardless of what other evidence comes to the scene, could potentially be quite dangerous to the faith, in that it would make believers out to be narrow-minded and potentially subject to ridicule. And in a certain way, that warning has come true with the battles we’re having right now."

 

[SteveB28]

I already did that and you made the choice to ignore the response and disregard it.

You are a waste of time. Talk to yourself.

 

[sfs]

Evolutionists are basing their theory on what they call junk DNA

Incorrect. Nothing in evolutionary theory is based on junk DNA. In fact, large amounts of junk DNA was not expected by evolutionary biologists.

when in fact Science is able to show that Junk DNA is not JUNK at all

Also incorrect.

and that everything has a Divine plan and purpose.

Also incorrect. There are no scientific papers showing divine purpose.

The so called Junk is what actually regulates the DNA.

Incorrect. Noncoding regulatory DNA regulates genes. Junk DNA is just junk.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Collins explains how God can have a plan and still work through what appears to us to be a random process. God is a Master at Math and He does not make mistakes or errors. Evolutionists are basing their theory on what they call junk DNA when in fact Science is able to show that Junk DNA is not JUNK at all and that everything has a Divine plan and purpose. The so called Junk is what actually regulates the DNA. Collins tells us that DNA is the Language of God and every day we better understand this Language and How God uses DNA to Create.

You can try and squeeze Collins' religious beliefs and his attempt at consolidating those beliefs with the actual science, till you are blue in the face. It will not change the fact that Collins accepts Evolution Theory as presented by the sciences of biology and genetics.

He is not an ID proponent, or cdesign proponentsist, nore a creationist and he wouldn't for a second agree to the drivel and misrepresentations of biology that you post here every single day.

Collins accepts evolution theory in the exact same way as Dawkins accepts evolution theory - his religious beliefs not withstanding.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No you are not willing to invest five min of your time? Then there is nothing I can do to help you.

Well,... you could actually present the math instead of a youtube video... You know... like you are being asked to do.

You made claims about "the math", so it's only logical that people assume that you know what you are talking about - since you brought it up in the first place.

Explain in your own words. Don't just post links.