Re: [asa] Francis S. Collins argues that science can lead to faith

As I recall from the Francis Collins talk I attended last fall
(http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200510/0358.html), he distinguished
between "intelligent design" as a religious belief (which is presumably held
by anyone who believes God is the Creator) and "Intelligent Design" the
"scientific theory" which claims that this design is detectable empirically.

I think the other key point Demski misses is "it will not shake my faith if
somebody comes up with a model that explains how that the first cells
formed without divine intervention."

Would it shake Dembski's faith if the mathmematics used in his "no free
lunch" theorums turn out not to be valid?
Would it shake Behe's faith if evidence shows that the evolution of flagella
by natural selection was not only possible but likely?
Would it shake Johnson's or Well's faith if the fatal flaws they believe
evoultionary theory has turn out not to be fatal?

Of course, many would argue these things have already happened.

I'm looking forward to Collins' book and I hope it will be made into a film,
comprable to "Priviledged Planet." I wonder if anyone would object to the
Smithsonian screening that.

On an unrelated note, it seems odd to me that the scientific theory is the
one that gets the capital letters......
 
__
Louise M. Freeman, PhD
Psychology Dept
Mary Baldwin College
Staunton, VA 24401
540-887-7326
FAX 540-887-7121

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/06/AR2006070600979.html

I wonder how the Discover Institute will react to this. We have
someone who denies Intelligent Design and yet:

1. Is an Evangelical
2. Believes in the Cosmological and Moral Proofs for the existence of God
3. Believes in fine tuning

Here's a least a partial answer:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1253

[Collins speaking:] Another issue, however—one where I am very puzzled
about what the answer will be—is the origin of life. Four billion
years ago, the conditions on this planet were completely inhospitable
to life as we know it; 3.85 billion years ago, life was teeming. That
is a very short period—150 million years—for the assembly of
macromolecules into a self-replicating form. I think even the most
bold and optimistic proposals for the origin of life fall well short
of achieving any real probability for that kind of event having
occurred. Is this where God entered? Is this how life got started? I
am happy to accept that model, but it will not shake my faith if
somebody comes up with a model that explains how that the first cells
formed without divine intervention. Again, watch out for the
God-of-the-gaps. However, I think it is noteworthy that this
particular area of evolution, the earliest step, is still very much in
disarray.

Why shouldn't Miller and Collins be called ID proponents (or at least
ID sympathizers) when it comes to the origin of life? [Note: Miller
was made into an ID proponent by misquoting him, see here
http://www.millerandlevine.com/dembski/ ] And if ID is scientifically
valid at the origin of life, aren't they on a slippery slope? If ID is
potentially valid at the origin of life, what is to preclude its
validity for the subsequent history of life?

---
I guess Dembski didn't catch Collins' warning of "watch out for the
God-of-the-gaps". All Collins does is not presuppose either a
naturalistic or supernaturalistic answer for the origin question. But,
Dembski asks the wrong question. Does his courting of Miller and
Collins suggest that he is a TE proponent or sympathizer? If so, then
Dr. Collins' goal in his book of promoting harmony between faith
science will have been partially realized.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.