"the language of God"
Offline "
Collins has described his parents as "only nominally Christian" and by graduate school he considered himself an atheist. However, dealing with dying patients led him to question his religious views, and he investigated various faiths. He became a believer after observing the faith of his critically ill patients and reading Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis [1].
In Collins' book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (published in July 2006), he considers scientific discoveries an "opportunity to worship." In his book Collins examines and subsequently rejects creationism and Intelligent Design. His own belief system is Theistic Evolution (TE) which he defines as: (1) The universe came into being out of nothingness, approximately 14 billion years ago, (2) Despite massive improbabilities, the properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life, (3) While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and complexity 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 a common ancestor with the great apes, (6) But humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history.
In Collins' book, he suggests that a better term for theistic evolution would be BioLogos (bios is the Greek word for "life", and logos is Greek for "word"
. BioLogos "expresses the belief that God is the source of all life and that life expresses the will of God."
A documentary titled "Darwin's Deadly Legacy" by the Coral Ridge Ministries released in August 2006 originally advertised that it featured Collins and claims to "show why evolution is a bad idea that should be discarded into the dustbin of history." However, in email exchanged with science blogger PZ Myers, Collins was "unambiguous in stating that he was interviewed about his book, and that was then inserted into the video without his knowledge."[2] When asked by the Anti-Defamation League why he agreed to appear in such a production, Collins stated that he was "absolutely appalled by what Coral Ridge Ministries is doing. I had NO knowledge that Coral Ridge Ministries was planning a TV special on Darwin and Hitler, and I find the thesis of Dr. Kennedy's program utterly misguided and inflammatory. [3]" Collins' name has since been removed from the Coral Ridge Ministries' promotional site [4]; however, the interview segment was left in place with Collins saying that "Man is a special creature. We are not just part of some random evolutionary process with no purpose." He also commented on the large amount of data in the genetic code of humans and on the percentage of scientists who believe in God"
Thoughts?
*Our world is far more complex than the rigid structure we want to assign to it, and we will probably never fully understand it.*
"Those believers who are sophisticated enough to understand the paradox have found exciting ways to bend logic into pretzel shapes in order to defend the indefensible." - Hamby
- Login to post comments
The problem here is that it assumes life can ONLY exist as we know it. This is, obviously, false. If the atmosphere of our planet had been primarily methane (for example) there is no reason to assume that mathane breathing life could not have evolved just as readily as oxygen breathing life.
If I'm interpreting this right, his "evidence" for the existance of a god is that humans, generally, try to find god? That would be, if I'm not mistaken, argumentum ad populum.
First, I would say that I find it hard to credit anyone who is at all impressed with Mere Christianity with too much intelligence. The fact that C.S. Lewis figured he was making a rational argument is amusing. The fact that others think the same is sad. I think people believe in arguments like Lewis's because they want to, not because of the overwhelming logic. Clever, powerful arguments have been made supporting god-belief, but Lewis only made a sad, shallow half-attempt at a moral argument.
Well, this is just another god-of-the-gaps, really. I'm afraid I'm going to have to pretend to be a physicist to answer this in detail, so here goes.
The apparent fine-tuning of the universe and the fundamental physical constants is a poorly-explored area of physics, so it can be a breeding ground for all manor of wild theories, partially because we have no good way to test any hypothesis, because we don't have the ability to observe from outside a universe (particularly our own). It has been noted, particularly, that the cosmological constant seems to be very fine-tuned to allow for life, and that this supports the idea of a "divine plan".
In truth, there's really no way that I'm aware of to support an argument in favor of any particular model to explain the apparent fine-tuning. Some posit a multiverse in which universes evolve, and some suggest a multiverse in which so many universes exist that at least a few would have to be suitable for life. In these cases, the fact that we are here now is not amazing, it's just a selection effect (we must arise in a universe that can support our existence). Some suggest that life could have evolved in a number of different universes that work substantially differently from ours, so it isn't so amazing that ours is capable of life. Personally, I prefer to think it likely that there is a multiverse in which all possible universes exist in non-overlapping dimensions (I like the symmetry of it), though that's just a thought, not a belief.
As I see it, the theistic (or rather deistic, I suppose) model described above has several major problems. First, how do you explain the god? Complex things don't usually exist before simple things, and it's hard to see how a god complex enough to understand how the constants would interact to form life ahead of time could exist. Second, why should our limited, not-all-inclusive universe be so singular that it is the only one? Why is all of reality limited to just one universe? Third, and this applies to this specific argument, not all other possible arguments derived from fine-tuning, why assume that life, particularly human life, is the point? It certainly doesn't represent a very large percentage of the matter and energy in the universe, nor the space, nor the time so far, so why assume that it's the point? And why make life possible only to leave it alone, and do nothing to interact with it? I think this hand-off approach is extremely difficult to reconcile with idea of a Moral Law which has been imposed on us.
He should have been smart enough to see that his words would be turned like that. It sounds like he was just too trusting of these fundamentalists. The anti-science groups will seize any opportunity to discredit science or make it appear to support their own irrational beliefs.
I hope that's what you were looking for in some fashion.
It's only the fairy tales they believe.