The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...it's the National Institiutes of Health that he is being appointed to as Director ... which is an ADMINISTRATIVE post ... where he won't be doing experimental research!!!

...anyway HOW would a Christian, even if he wanted to, hide experimental data that will be peer reviewed and produced in collaboration with other scientists?????

Hey, I'm not objecting to his appointment.

I was just saying ( and I stess in the most unlikeliest of possibilities) if he was to cancel/postpone/cut funding an experiment because it could cause a conflict in his faith it would not be good for anyone working as a scientist.

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Hey, I'm not objecting to his appointment.

I was just saying ( and I stess in the most unlikeliest of possibilities) if he was to cancel/postpone/cut funding an experiment because it could cause a conflict in his faith it would not be good for anyone working as a scientist.

...that is a DIFFERENT point to the one you made earlier!!!

...you could ALSO have reactions to funding certain experiments AS WELL ... so there you go!!!

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by Jakkass
Although Francis Collins has served years as a doctor, and he has served years in biological research. This man couldn't be better for it irrespective of his beliefs.


Wicknight

What do you mean irrespective of his beliefs.

That is ridiculous. Your argument is that we should ignore what he believes, ignore who he is, and assume he will do a good job anyway.

Why hire him then? If we ignore who he is and what he believes surely anyone could do the job.

He is no longer in a position where his beliefs do not matter.

...the Atheistic Inquisition and Star Chamber BECKONS!!!!

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...that is a DIFFERENT point to the one you made earlier!!!

...you could ALSO have reactions to funding certain experiments AS WELL ... so there you go!!!

How is it different, if he violates a principle of science because of bias. It will be bad - If violates said principle because of potential conflict with faith it will be detrimental.

I sure you'll agree with when I say that science and religion have a very fragile tension in some parts of the world (namely US) the last thing either of us want is more fuel to the fire.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

At the time he didn't have official work.

So? That's irrelevant. He wasn't there on behalf of his employer, it was to do with his recently published book.

Wicknight wrote: »

You can only assess a persons qualification for a job based on their passed record. This was a public engagement where Collins made no qualms about stating this position of his.

See above. Collins has a brilliant track record in both medicine and science. That's why he was chosen for this job. His faith does not matter.

Wicknight wrote: »

No, he is saying because he is a scientist who has let his Christian supernaturalism impinge upon his scientific view of the world the job is not for him.

He's a brilliant scientist. His scientific work has led to great results. That's good enough for me.

Wicknight wrote: »

Having a preconceived notion of how certain sciences, such as neurology, will work based on a religious belief is non-scientific. If you are going to manage science you have to keep these things separate. Collins doesn't, nor does he seem to want to. So the job is not for him.

Does he have a preconceived notion? Again, nothing but tripe Wicknight. I was actually wasn't expecting you to be so unreasonable about this, this is nothing short of ridiculous.

When he is discussing his book with invitation, he's perfectly welcome to discuss his opinion. That's what the book was about, his opinion about the compatibility of Christianity and science. It would be laughable to go to such an event about ones book, and not discuss this opinion. He wasn't on any official work, and as such he is entitled to speak his opinion.

Harris' objection falls short.

Wicknight wrote: »

You will notice that the comments that sparked Harris' concern dealt with neurology, a subject close to Harris' heart

I think it's more the atheism concern, a subject which is close to Harris' heart impeding with clear thought.

Wicknight wrote: »

What do you mean irrespective of his beliefs.

His beliefs are irrelevant to how well he can execute the job.

Wicknight wrote: »

That is ridiculous. Your argument is that we should ignore what he believes, ignore who he is, and assume he will do a good job anyway.

Yes, that's what the law suggests. If the state is really secular this is what it has to do. Assess people on their ability not on their religion. Francis Collins is an excellent scientist with medical knowledge, that's all that matters.

Wicknight wrote: »

Why hire him then? If we ignore who he is and what he believes surely anyone could do the job.

Why hire an excellent scientist? I would have thought that was fairly obvious Wicknight :pac:

Wicknight wrote: »

He is no longer in a position where his beliefs do not matter.

They don't at all. It's mere childishness to suggest that someone who is very well qualified cannot do a job because they are Christian. I'm amazed that you are actually defending Harris here.

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

I see you are quote mining Creationist sites again without bothering to do your own research JC :rolleyes:

arguing over a gnat ... and swallowing a camel !!!!

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

How is it different, if he violates a principle of science because of bias. It will be bad - If violates said principle because of potential conflict with faith it will be detrimental.

I sure you'll agree with when I say that science and religion have a very fragile tension in some parts of the world (namely US) the last thing either of us want is more fuel to the fire.

TRUTH and NO DISCRIMINATION are the only antidotes to this tension!!!

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

How is it different, if he violates a principle of science because of bias. It will be bad - If violates said principle because of potential conflict with faith it will be detrimental.

...and is there no risk that an Atheist will do the same ... or are they some kind of irreproachable paragons of virtue????

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

Hey, I'm not objecting to his appointment.

I was just saying ( and I stess in the most unlikeliest of possibilities) if he was to cancel/postpone/cut funding an experiment because it could cause a conflict in his faith it would not be good for anyone working as a scientist.

You really ought to read up about Francis Collins first. The guy helped pioneer one of the most important scientific discoveries of the 20th century (compiling the human genome). To say that this mans faith has hindered his science is just ridiculous.

Given that a lot of Christians are involved in science, and a lot of Christians have been involved in science for centuries Harris' view is utter lunacy.

J C

Jakkass wrote: »

So? That's irrelevant. He wasn't there on behalf of his employer, it was to do with his recently published book.

See above. Collins has a brilliant track record in both medicine and science. That's why he was chosen for this job. His faith does not matter.

He's a brilliant scientist. His scientific work has led to great results. That's good enough for me.

Does he have a preconceived notion? Again, nothing but tripe Wicknight. I was actually wasn't expecting you to be so unreasonable about this, this is nothing short of ridiculous.

When he is discussing his book with invitation, he's perfectly welcome to discuss his opinion. That's what the book was about, his opinion about the compatibility of Christianity and science. It would be laughable to go to such an event about ones book, and not discuss this opinion. He wasn't on any official work, and as such he is entitled to speak his opinion.

Harris' objection falls short.

I think it's more the atheism concern, a subject which is close to Harris' heart impeding with clear thought.

His beliefs are irrelevant to how well he can execute the job.

Yes, that's what the law suggests. If the state is really secular this is what it has to do. Assess people on their ability not on their religion. Francis Collins is an excellent scientist with medical knowledge, that's all that matters.

Why hire an excellent scientist? I would have thought that was fairly obvious Wicknight :pac:

They don't at all. It's mere childishness to suggest that someone who is very well qualified cannot do a job because they are Christian. I'm amazed that you are actually defending Harris here.

...Creation Scientists have made the same points over the past 30 years and were laughed at by BOTH Theistic and Materialistic Evolutionists!!!!

....and now it has come to the Theistic Evolutionists OWN doors !!!

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...and is there no risk that an Atheist will do the same ... or are they some kind of irreproachable paragons of virtue????

Where have I suggested or implied anything about atheists being paragons of virtue.

Malty_T wrote: »

No it isn't, a crime to be a scientist and a Christian. If an atheist stopped an experiment that went against his/her own beliefs then I would equally object to that.

The principle of fair and honest science must be upheld at all times[-PERHAPS I SHOULD HAVE ADDED THIS BIT THE FIRST TIME AROUND TO MAKE IT UNDISPUTABLY CLEAR -]BY EVERY SCIENTIST. This means all biases regardless how small must be put in a corner and the truth should be followed.

Malty_T wrote: »

I do not go looking for proof of what I believe, I try to be as impartial as possible.
That is the principle which a scientist is expected to uphold.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

don't at all. It's mere childishness to suggest that someone who is very well qualified cannot do a job because they are Christian.

And as soon as someone suggests that Jakkass give out to them for it :mad:

What I'm actually saying if you would bother to stop for a minute, is that he cannot do the job because he believes supernatural elements control the areas of biology he is now responsible for research into.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

And as soon as someone suggests that Jakkass give out to them for it :mad:

I just think that this is laughable and yes, I will post against such absurd and ridiculous views.

Wicknight wrote: »

What I'm actually saying if you would bother to stop for a minute, is that he cannot do the job because he believes supernatural elements control the areas of biology he is now responsible for research into.

It's irrelevant. Whether or not God exists doesn't influence the research in any way.

Your basically saying that a Christian cannot be as good a scientist as an atheist. This is nothing but propoganda and it has no place in finding the best man for the job.

I find this unbelievable. It appears that you only argue for secularism so that it can be abused later.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

It's irrelevant. Whether or not God exists doesn't influence the research in any way.

It does according to Collins, which is the whole point!

Jakkass wrote: »

Your basically saying that a Christian cannot be as good a scientist as an atheist.

Yeah, please quote me where I said that Jakkass :rolleyes:

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Where have I suggested or implied anything about atheists being paragons of virtue.

....so why do you raise the spectre of appointing Christians as a problem ... and specifically Prof Collins ... while the alternative of an Atheist is presumably no problem ... or do you believe they are both problem choices ... and an Alien should be appointed instead!!!

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

It does according to Collins, which is the whole point!

No it doesn't.

Collins was there to discuss the relationship between science and religion, it was to do with opinion rather than divulging scientific fact.

You have already conceded that this wasn't a part of any official role. It was in the light of his publication "The Language of God".

It's hardly unusual for people like Francis Collins to be invited to give their opinions, and indeed many opinions are given at universities.

You have said that this impacts his work, yet he has separated his opinion from the workplace. There are no incidents of Collins' faith ever stopping his work as Head of the Human Genome Project, and most likely there will not be any incident in relation to this new post.

Wicknight wrote: »

Yeah, please quote me where I said that Jakkass :rolleyes:

Your view concerning how he regards God's existence, and how he regards God as creator making him somehow unsuitable for the job speaks for itself.

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

What I'm actually saying if you would bother to stop for a minute, is that he cannot do the job because he believes supernatural elements control the areas of biology he is now responsible for research into.

...In fairness, I don't think you can be any clearer than that...ONLY ATHEISTS NEED APPLY!!!

...ANY Theist, be they Moslem, Jew, Hindu or Christian cannot be trusted !!!!

....and ONLY Atheists can be trusted to conclude day in and day out that 'Muck evolved into Man' ... with nothing added but time ... and this ALWAYS justifies giving EVERY senior job to an Atheist!!!

...this is the best bit of self-serving 'logic' since the 'invention' of Spontanous Evolution!!!!!

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

....so why do you raise the spectre of appointing Christians as a problem ... and specifically Prof Collins ... while the alternative of an Atheist is presumably no problem ... or do you believe they are both problem choices ... and an Alien should be appointed instead!!!

*Sigh*

To clarify,

Prof Collins has openly compare scriptures with scientific discoveries, this worries me. If an atheist was to take scientific discoveries and compare them to his lack of belief that would also worry me. They are biases..biases with science do not work.

An atheist, or Christian, or any other person of faith is no problem as long as they remain impartial to their work. With respect to Prof Collins, he openingly stated a bias..that's why I mentioned it as slight concern.
However,as I've yet to hear of him invoking said bias in his new position I have no objection to him in his position (how many times do I have to state that?)


You asked my honest opinion, I gave it, yet you are attempting to make it something else entirely - please stop-

But, yeah an Alien would be class

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

Prof Collins has openly compare scriptures with scientific discoveries, this worries me. If an atheist was to take scientific discoveries and compare them to his lack of belief that would also worry me. They are biases..biases with science do not work.

At a discussion about the compatibility between Christianity and science. Never in any of his official posts. It was a discussion about his opinion and about his book.

There isn't a bias, and there never has been a bias in Francis Collins work.

Malty_T wrote: »

An atheist, or Christian, or any other person of faith is no problem as long as they remain impartial to their work. With respect to Prof Collins, he openingly stated a bias..that's why I mentioned it as slight concern.
However,I've yet to hear of him invoking said bias in his new position so I have no objection to him in his position (how many times do I have to state that?)

I've yet to hear him invoking bias in any position. Bear in mind this was nothing to do with his official work.

Malty_T wrote: »

You asked my honest opinion, I gave it, yet you are attempting to make it something else entirely - please stop-

But, yeah an Alien would be class

It's nothing but Harris taking a jibe at Collins for being a Christian. Luckily the rest of society seem to be reasonable enough to see clearly.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

At a discussion about the compatibility between Christianity and science. Never in any of his official posts. It was a discussion about his opinion and about his book.

There isn't a bias, and there never has been a bias in Francis Collins work.



I've yet to hear him invoking bias in any position. Bear in mind this was nothing to do with his official work.



It's nothing but Harris taking a jibe at Collins for being a Christian. Luckily the rest of society seem to be reasonable enough to see clearly.

(I happen to disagree with Harris, forgot to mention that bit, I incorrectly assumed the sacrasm about the glasses would have given that away)
I think if you read my posts again, you''ll see I was giving a personal reaction to his open profession that science can be explained by scripture. I obviously object to that. However, I also said (again indirectly) I've no problem as long as he keeps his faith from conflicting with his position.

Why are we disagreeing over something we're agreeing on?
Unless that is, you personally believe, faith should be conflicting with science?

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

*Prof Collins has openly compare scriptures with scientific discoveries, this worries me. If an atheist was to take scientific discoveries and compare them to his lack of belief that would also worry me. They are biases..biases with science do not work.

...the Atheists are CONTINUALLY loudly proclaiming their belief in Materialistic Evolution NOT because of ANY evidence ... BUT because they are "not prepared to allow a Divine Foot inside their scientific doors!!!
....and NOW they appear to not even be prepared to allow a Christian foot inside said doors!!!:eek:

...they have even succeeded in establishing a self-serving definintion of Science that excludes supernatural hypotheses, even when such hypotheses ARE scientifically testable, using physically observable EVIDENCE!!!!

Malty_T wrote:

But, yeah an Alien would be class

...NOT if he turned around and ate you alive!!!!:D
...or sent you as a slave to the Planet Zog!!!:D

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

What I'm actually saying if you would bother to stop for a minute, is that he cannot do the job because he believes supernatural elements control the areas of biology he is now responsible for research into.

The mind boggles. Listen to yourself Wicknight. Just because the man believes in the supernatural he shouldn't be given a job as a scientist even though he significantly exceeds all the criteria required for that position? I thought you guys treasured peer reviewed research? Or is that only when the submitter shares the same non scientific world view as you?

Science cannot explain everything about how nature works which means that the man has every right to believe whatever he wants to about the blanks left by science. When science can prove that there is no supernatural only then can it be allowed to wield such an axe. As long as he does not use his own personal beliefs to draw scientific conclusions from the raw data being securitized then he has as much right to do the job as any atheist scientist who are seemingly free to draw any religious conclusions from the same data that they like and get away with it.

What appears to be leaking through in your posts is a view that you must at all costs keep science atheistic no matter what.

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...

...NOT if he turned around and ate you alive!!!!:D

I doubt he'd do that now, the chances of me providing nourishment for him are slim...he might still kill me though :eek:

the Atheists are CONTINUALLY loudly proclaiming their belief in Materialistic Evolution NOT because of ANY evidence ... BUT because they are "not prepared to allow a Divine Foot inside their scientific doors!!!

Who? Certainly not me anyways, have I not made that abundantly clear?

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

I doubt he'd do that now, the chances of me providing nourishment for him are slim...he might still kill me though :eek:

...and would you still believe he was 'cool' if he tried to kill you ????

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...and would you still believe he was 'cool' if he killed you ????

Well of course if he used a phazor that would be cool wouldn't it:D?

Oooh ooh wait, a death ray..now that's be sweet.
Or some sort of atom disintegrator.
Oh noes wait, wait, an artificial black hole generator.

But what would be the coolest of them all would be
If the alien was a Pokemon

The Mad Hatter

"he believes supernatural elements control the areas of biology he is now responsible for research into."

Seriously.

If he believed ghosts were fiddling around in our DNA, would you guys even be bothering to defend him?

Morbert

Soul Winner wrote: »

As long as he does not use his own personal beliefs to draw scientific conclusions from the raw data being securitized then he has as much right to do the job as any atheist scientist who are seemingly free to draw any religious conclusions from the same data that they like and get away with it.

This is what I would be worried about regarding Collins. He must be willing to adopt materialism as a methodology, and some of his writings suggest otherwise. He claims, for example, that altruism and morality cannot have natural explanations, and that the human mind cannot be a product of the human brain. As a scientist in charge of funding much of the biological sciences, he must be prepared to assume that such phenomena do have effective natural explanations.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

The mind boggles. Listen to yourself Wicknight. Just because the man believes in the supernatural he shouldn't be given a job as a scientist even though he significantly exceeds all the criteria required for that position?

Is there any point in having a conversation with you guys when you are all so determined to misrepresent and distort what is happening and the objections to it.

No Soul Winner, it is not "just" because he believe in the supernatural. Nor is anyone suggesting he shouldn't be given a job as a scientist, because he isn't being given a job as a scientist. He is being given a job in administration and policy. If he was being given a job as a scientist I wouldn't care, as you state below there are safe guards in science that prevent personal bias from effecting your work. There isn't in administration and policy.

Soul Winner wrote: »

I thought you guys treasured peer reviewed research? Or is that only when the submitter shares the same non scientific world view as you?

Given that this is not a scientific research position but an administration and policy position, please point out how peer review helps in this case.

Soul Winner wrote: »

When science can prove that there is no supernatural only then can it be allowed to wield such an axe.

Oh don't be ridiculous. Collins is making claims about reality based on supernatural belief and has now been put into a position of organising the research into these areas.

As Hatter asks would you be defending him if he believed ghosts organised DNA?

Soul Winner wrote: »

As long as he does not use his own personal beliefs to draw scientific conclusions

I always find it interesting that after arguing about this stuff when you guys actually realise what is being objected to you end up agree with us.

Guess what, he is using his own personal beliefs to draw scientific conclusions.

Soul Winner wrote: »

What appears to be leaking through in your posts is a view that you must at all costs keep science atheistic no matter what.

You must at all times keep science open to exploration unbiased from preconceived belief that has been reached through other means.

If a Christian can do that I've no problem with them being a Christian. Unfortunately you guys don't have the greatest track record in this regard, and Collins is just another example.

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

Sam Vimes said:

I can observe gravity in action. I cannot see evolution in action (No, fruit-flies mutating into wingless/double winged fruit-flies doesn't count). The historical evidence that is interpreted as supporting evolution is disputed by scientists equally as well qualified to speak as those who assert in favour of evolution. Competing theories, each with its own problems.


The evidence is there - it just does not support evolution or creation unequivocally.

There is no evidence whatsoever for creation. Every single piece of evidence unequivocally supports evolution. You can see the evidence for evolution as long as you open your eyes an look at it. The only thing you will find supporting creation is a creationists misunderstanding of the evidence. I read the first piece of "evidence":

DNA in “ancient” fossils. DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years.

And it's not true so I stopped reading.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Having consulted the article, I think his views are still unjustified. That lecture I assume was a visiting lecture where he was invited to discuss his views. That wasn't a part of his official work.

You didn't read the article and discriminated against Harris by assuming that Harris was discriminating against Collins because of his religion and not because of his publicly expressed views that go against science. I must say that elicits a LOL from me. At this point whether Harris was actually discriminating or not is irrelevant because you assumed he was without reading the article for yourself.