Frances Collins concept of God

[lesliedellow]

I do find it slightly disappointing that a man of Collins' education and intelligence is not satisfied that our innate understanding of good and evil, of right and wrong, is a product of our evolution, and succumbs to presenting untestable supernatural 'explanations' for it. You'd think he'd know better.

I can't remember the details, but he tells the (true) story of somebody who was a prisoner, but managed to escape. He was fleeing across a frozen pond, hotly pursued by one of his guards. The ice broke, and the guard found himself in ice cold water, yelling for help, Instead of making good his escape, the prisoner turned back to rescue his guard, and a few days later he was executed.

Collins remark is that the above story cannot very easily be made to fit the paradigm, whereby altruism works within a group, because it will help that group to survive as a unit.

The name might not be familiar to Americans, but Richard Dawkins' chum, Robert Winston, is an Orthodox Jew and biologist, who also does not buy that explanation of altruism.

 

[Oafman]

Collins remark is that the above story cannot very easily be made to fit the paradigm, whereby altruism works within a group, because it will help that group to survive as a unit.

Our desire to prevent the death of other members of our species seems to me to fit that paradigm rather easily. It may well be the case that this escapee felt his chances of escape were slim, and perhaps he would receive clemency as a result of his altruism.

 

[lesliedellow]

Our desire to prevent the death of other members of our species seems to me to fit that paradigm rather easily. It may well be the case that this escapee felt his chances of escape were slim, and perhaps he would receive clemency as a result of his altruism.

Out desire to prevent the death of other members of our species? We are probably the most violent species on the face of the planet. We think nothing of starting world wars. Not to mention death camps during both war and peace times.

 

[Oafman]

Out desire to prevent the death of other members of our species? We are probably the most violent species on the face of the planet. We think nothing of starting world wars. Not to mention death camps during both war and peace times.

I ought to have wrote 'our desire to prevent the death of a member of our tribe'. There are convincing natural explanations for such behaviour, as there are for the ease with which we are able to dehumanise the other tribe.

They might not explain the behaviour of Collins' prisoner, but as I wrote in my last post, there could easily be alternative explanations for that. And he refers to it because it is remarkable, and not typical.

 

[lesliedellow]

They might not explain the behaviour of Collins' prisoner, but as I wrote in my last post, there could easily be alternative explanations for that. And he refers to it because it is remarkable, and not typical.

He refers to it precisely in the context of saying that he doesn't think the attempts to explain morality in terms of evolution wash, and that is one example of why not.

He doesn't go as far as Richard Dawkins' colleague in saying he thinks our moral sense is the strongest argument for the existence of God.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Especially the part where the plants were made before the sun that's 100% correct.

That is an interpretation of the Bible that conflicts with Science so it is not an accurate or true understanding. Usually that is the sort of twisted thinking we find with skeptics & scoffers bible interpretation. True Bible students Love God and they Love the Word of God and they put some time and effort into their study of the Bible. The skeptics Bible is just a mockery of the Bible. If it is not against the rules then it should be. But I did start a thread about the skeptics Bible and this sort of conversation should be there in that thread. Not here in a thread about Francis Collins, a man that clearly loves God and he loves the truth.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I assume you believe in Science and the natural laws of science. All I am saying is that God is associated with those Natural laws. So if you want to know God, if you want to understand God then study Science and the Laws of Science. No one is asking you to put your trust in Man. Put your trust in the God that Created the Universe that we live in using the laws that are well understood by Science. As they say Science tells us HOW and Religion tells us WHY.

But for some reason, you don't want to accept the "how" coming from biology.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Not here in a thread about Francis Collins, a man that clearly loves God and he loves the truth.

... but wich you only seem to mention when he says things that you can fit into your a priori beliefs bubble.

You never answered my question on that other quote of Collins that you seem to be avoiding like the plague.

I've put it in my signature for your convenience.

 

[joshua 1 9]

But for some reason, you don't want to accept the "how" coming from biology.

I like science and I like biology. My father served our community as a medial doctor for over 50 years. Science was very much a part of the world I grew up in. There are many problems that science can not solve and many questions that science can not answer. So that is why we need the Bible and a proper understanding of the Bible. When the doctors say we have done all we know to do then it time to turn to God and pray. Some studies show that people can add up to 15 years onto their life if they follow the Bible and the teaching of the Bible. If they are doers and not just hearers of the word.

 

[joshua 1 9]

... but wich you only seem to mention when he says things that you can fit into your a priori beliefs bubble.

You never answered my question on that other quote of Collins that you seem to be avoiding like the plague.

I've put it in my signature for your convenience.

'Collins did not use the term: "neo-Darwinism". He said: "Darwin's framework of variations and natural selection is unquestionable correct". So is indeed YOU that is twisting what he said to fit it into your "beliefs bubble". I do not have a "beliefs bubble" because I go where the evidence takes me. Sometimes yelling and kicking and screaming, but in the end we all have no other choice other then to go where the evidence takes us. “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.” (Romans 14:11)

FYI neo-darwinism has been replaced with post-neo-darwinism. Neo-Darwinism is the "modern synthesis" of Darwinian evolution through natural selection with Mendelian genetics. Punctuated equilibrium created post-neo-darwinism. Although they still use the neo-darwinism label for the new school of though to avoid embarrassment over a theory that seems to be evolving more then what the theory attempts to understand.

"Darwin's framework" now becomes a term that Collins has coined so he is at liberty to define it anyway he wants.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I like science and I like biology. My father served our community as a medial doctor for over 50 years. Science was very much a part of the world I grew up in. There are many problems that science can not solve and many questions that science can not answer. So that is why we need the Bible and a proper understanding of the Bible.

Why would the bible be able to answer questions that science can't answer?

When the doctors say we have done all we know to do then it time to turn to God and pray. Some studies show that people can add up to 15 years onto their life if they follow the Bible and the teaching of the Bible. If they are doers and not just hearers of the word.

Other studies have shown that it's just a placebo effect.
One study even showed that patients who knew they were being prayed for, actually did worse.

No study at all has ever shown that praying has any kind of measurable effect whatsoever.

I'll add that there's also a good reason why YOU YOURSELF mention this "praying for the sick" as the last resort, after actual help failed to be succesfull.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Please formulate an answer using your own words.

I don't get why you consistently avoid answering this question...

It's pretty straightforward.
Either you agree with the collins quote, or you don't.

It's a "yes" or "no" question.

 

[Simmo11]

That is an interpretation of the Bible that conflicts with Science so it is not an accurate or true understanding. Usually that is the sort of twisted thinking we find with skeptics & scoffers bible interpretation. True Bible students Love God and they Love the Word of God and they put some time and effort into their study of the Bible. The skeptics Bible is just a mockery of the Bible. If it is not against the rules then it should be. But I did start a thread about the skeptics Bible and this sort of conversation should be there in that thread. Not here in a thread about Francis Collins, a man that clearly loves God and he loves the truth.

What has loving God and the word of God got to do with the truth of either of them? if there is something wrong with them your love would only be a hindrance? if your son is a murderer your love might make you blind to his faults.
The truth is often hidden by love that's why it's said that love is blind.

 

[Astrophile]

I do not understand, are you refuting the Second Law of Thermodynamics? The order in one body can increase, provided that the amount of disorder in its surroundings increases by a greater amount. So a baby brings disorder and chaos to their environment.

I was presenting a particular example of a general principle, that, as you say, 'the order in one body can increase, provided that the amount of disorder in its surroundings increases by a greater amount'.

The same principle applies to the young of any animal, to the seeds of plants, to the formation of snowflakes and mineral crystals, to the formation of atoms and molecules from elementary particles, to the formation of galaxies, stars and planets, and to the evolution of living species by the process of descent with modification. If you accept that the development of a child does not break the second law of thermodynamics, you must also accept that these other processes that bring order from disorder are thermodynamically possible, provided that the entropy of the universe as a whole increases.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I was presenting a particular example of a general principle, that, as you say, 'the order in one body can increase, provided that the amount of disorder in its surroundings increases by a greater amount'.

The same principle applies to the young of any animal, to the seeds of plants, to the formation of snowflakes and mineral crystals, to the formation of atoms and molecules from elementary particles, to the formation of galaxies, stars and planets, and to the evolution of living species by the process of descent with modification. If you accept that the development of a child does not break the second law of thermodynamics, you must also accept that these other processes that bring order from disorder are thermodynamically possible, provided that the entropy of the universe as a whole increases.

This whole thing is actually Hawkings premise. Maybe you can take a look to see what he says about it.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/life-in-the-universe.html

 

[joshua 1 9]

It's pretty straightforward.
Either you agree with the collins quote, or you don't.

It's a "yes" or "no" question.

I agree with Collins in general. He has to make compromises that I do not have to make. I already explained that to you.

 

[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.

So you do not see any difference between theistic evolution and non theistic or atheistic evolution?

 

[Simmo11]

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

So would I, how on earth can someone know what is "outside of nature"? even if "outside of nature" exists how could anyone from "inside nature" know about it? by even suggesting it would mean the person was not thinking straight.
I suppose that's what indoctrination does to some people it makes them have irrational thoughts and hold irrational beliefs.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I agree with Collins in general. He has to make compromises that I do not have to make. I already explained that to you.

And still no straightforward answer....

Once more, do you agree with Collins when he says "Universal common descent by natural processes is scientifically non‐negotiable. The theory of neo‐Darwinian evolution cannot rationally be doubted by any educated person", yes or no?

 

[DogmaHunter]

So you do not see any difference between theistic evolution and non theistic or atheistic evolution?

The process of evolution is the process of evolution.

It's reproduction with variation followed by selection.

Contrary to what you, and a few others here, consistently claim, that the scientific theory is somehow "atheistic", the actual theory makes no mention of gods whatsoever. Not pro and not con. Just like any other theory in science.

Is atomic theory "atheistic"?
Germ theory?
Plate tectonics?
Relativity??

Collins has no problems with the scientific theory of evolution, as his quote in my signature clearly shows.

He calls it "non-negotiable" and says it "can't be rationally doubted by educated people".