Re: Report: Francis Collins presentation

Merv and Michael:

Thank you for your comments Merv. The title of that book would be "Darwin's
God", not "Finding Darwin's God" which was a book by Ken Miller. It seems
obvious that, while there are parts of evolutionary theory that make sense
and there is plenty of positive evidence for evolution, there are also
plenty of problems with evolution. Yet evolutionists routinely claim the
theory is a fact. It seems abundantly clear that the science simply does not
support this level of certainty. It seems obvious that there is more than
mere scientific reasoning here. Michael here are some findings that would
help evolution:

1. Formation of a cell in the lab.
2. Scientific description of how the DNA code evolved.
3. Scientific description of how Histone IV evolved.
4. Scientific description of how echolocation in bats evolved.
5. Scientific description of how the human brain evolved.
6. Scientific explanation of how macro evolution works in spite of the fact
that small scale adaptation seems to be limited.
7. Scientific explanation of how the evolutionary process evolves so as to
make evolution possible.
8. Scientific explanation of how massive convergence happens in evolution.
How does evolution find same solutions in the astronomical design space?
9. Scientific explanation for non homologous development pathways and genes
for homologous structures in cousin species.

--George

> Be careful about attributing an “all or nothing” stance to recent posts,
> Michael. Of course I can’t speak for them, but I didn’t read their
> comments as necessarily a rejection of all evolutionary theory. This may
> be an example of the perverse effect the high-intensity polarization
> surrounding this debate has preventing it from being truly engaging. I
> may not know everyone’s positions in this thread yet, but I haven’t
> heard any claims here that evolution as a whole is completely wrong and
> needs discarding (though I’m sure many YEC wouldn’t mind stating it just
> that way.) But everybody gets so defensive and jittery about objections
> or about possible future abuses from quote miners that the whole topic
> becomes almost a sacred cow against which no criticism can be voiced
> lest you find yourself pigeon-holed as an extremist.
>
> Mr. Hunter, I remember reading a book of yours some years ago – “Finding
> Darwin’s God …”. I remember it to be a good informative work. I presume
> you are one & the same? It was a lot of books ago, so I don’t remember
> details but I do remember my impressions.
>
> --merv
>
>
>
> Michael Roberts wrote:
>
>> I don't think Collin's statement is over-dogmatic at all. The evidence
>> from all branches of science are overwhelming FOR evolution and I cannot
>> think of one argument from either the YEC or ID camp which has any
>> validity.
>> Without being disparaging to Francis Collins his views are not new and
>> are simply how most wise Christians have dealt with evolution since 1858.
>> However like sermons on the resurrection they need repeating with
>> freshness every year.
>> All YEC and ID do is to damage the progress of the Gospel and make life
>> harder for Christians in science as the rude email Steve Schimmerich
>> received indicates (look at the Assoc of Christian Geologists listserve)
>> I do wish George or Denyse would give me some reasons why evolution is
>> wrong instead of speaking hot air.
>> Regards
>> Michael
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* Cornelius Hunter <mailto:ghunter2099@sbcglobal.net>
>> *To:* asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 25, 2005 10:10 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: Report: Francis Collins presentation
>>
>> Loise:
>> "And, though I would nt presume to speak for Dr. Collins, my best
>> guess if that he would say that there are actually not that many
>> problems with evolution as a theory (or unifying principle) and
>> that virtually no one is challenging it on a pure scientific
>> basis. He described evidence in support of evolution as "rock
>> solid" and made it clear that it is not something at the fringes
>> of science. A serious challenge to evolution would require the
>> overturning of major principles in a variety of scientific fields."
>> It is this sort of dogmatic overstatement that is troubling. Rock
>> solid? No one is challenging on a scientific basis? A challenge
>> would require overturning major scientific principles? The only
>> major principles that would be overturned are those within
>> evolutionary theory. Folks, the scientific evidence simply does
>> not lend itself to this kind of certainty.
>> --George
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* Freeman, Louise Margaret <mailto:lfreeman@mbc.edu>
>> *To:* asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 25, 2005 9:23 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: Report: Francis Collins presentation
>>
>> I'm unclear what "truncated" means in this context. Also,
>> it appears from your report that Collins avoided the many
>> problems with evolution. Think of someone arguing for
>> geocentrism without mentioning retrograde motion.
>> --George
>> To the best of my recollection, "truncated" meant "broken
>> off" and the point was that the genes were broken at the
>> exact letter.
>> And, though I would nt presume to speak for Dr. Collins,
>> my best guess if that he would say that there are actually
>> not that many problems with evolution as a theory (or
>> unifying principle) and that virtually no one is
>> challenging it on a pure scientific basis. He described
>> evidence in support of evolution as "rock solid" and made
>> it clear that it is not something at the fringes of
>> science. A serious challenge to evolution would require
>> the overturning of major principles in a variety of
>> scientific fields.
>>
>
>
>
Received on Tue Oct 25 19:45:14 2005