Glen.Nogami
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2006
- Messages
- 493
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9207913
Sigh. I just finished taking notes for my response, I'll post it in a while. See what y'all think.
My response (Spoilered to A) Allow you to listen to the story while being unbiased and B) not taking up an enormous amount of space on the page)
Sigh. I just finished taking notes for my response, I'll post it in a while. See what y'all think.
My response (Spoilered to A) Allow you to listen to the story while being unbiased and B) not taking up an enormous amount of space on the page)
The first thing that Collins says is regarding the questions that science supposedly can’t answer.
First, prove the need for the answering of those questions. Here are the questions: “What happens after we die?” “Why am I here?” “What’s the meaning of life?” No evidence that anything at all happens after we die. We are here because our progenitors reproduced. The meaning of life, such as it is, is to perpetuate our own genes. If you want to propose a more complex answer, please provide reason to do so. Otherwise, parsimony negates it pretty effectively, particularly as regards something as absurdly complex as God.
Onward to the intricacy of the human genome: “[DNA] has to give you a sense of awe,” and “You can’t help but marvel,” Well, yes. It’s amazing. There is, however, no reason to suspect divine origins. Evidence.
If you’re a believer, says Collins, seeing DNA is seeing a bit of God’s creative genius, a window into God’s mind. Except, of course, there isn’t any evidence for the existence of god. DNA is complex. The Joint-Strike Fighter is complex. Neither, unless you have real evidence otherwise, was created by a god.
Now, Terry Gross asks if Collins thought it was inappropriate to bring God into the announcement of the human genome project’s success. (This announcement, by the way, is a really appalling bit of propaganda, with Clinton and Collins speaking like a religious tract.)
Collins gives us a lovely bandwagon fallacy to start off, that most of America is religious, therefore it was appropriate. He then says that “at a moment like that, ought we not to stand back and be a little more than mechanical in our thinking?” Why no, Frank, no, we ought not. Not unless you provide proof for something out there beyond what we have observed.DNA, he says at last, is “a glimpse of” “something larger than us.”
Not to be a broken record, but EVIDENCE?
Now some solid information regarding DNA. He discusses the immense complexity of DNA, our similarity to other humans, etc. No religious claptrap in here. Collins describes DNA as drawing connections to animals and being “far more powerful than the fossil record,” and quite good evidence for evolution. This is accurate, AFAIK.
Now, the good stuff (Oh, how naïve I was when I took this note). How does Collins reconcile empiricism with Faith? He…quotes the Bible. “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen. Evidence, interesting, right there in the definition.” That’s right. Definition, he said. Religious texts are our new dictionaries, and suddenly it’s OK to beat your wife for that cold pot roast, or to massacre the entire populace of a nation that you’ve conquered.
As evidence, Collins quotes the human knowledge of right and wrong and the “fine-tuning of the universe”. Both debunked easily in The God Delusion alone.
Then, he describes atheist scientists as attempting to “disprove God.” Another inaccuracy, of course.
Science, he says, is FORCED (yes, his words) to remain silent regarding God, because of NOMA. Metaphor time! The “net” of science has a mesh size too large to “catch” God. How can there possibly be a “mesh size” too large to catch an omnipotent, omniscient being who meddles frequently in human affairs?
Some more fact, thankfully. He acknowledges evolution as almost incontrovertibly true. He says, then, that God gave us the ability to read the truth of evolution. He says that as a believer who looks to The Bible for answers, he has no problem with evolution. He takes the typical sub-fundie position of “Genesis is not a science textbook.”
Oh good. He describes his belief as “Theistic Evolution.” Gross. Seriously, gross. Goes on a while describing evolution as God’s tool of creation.
Please. Occams razor for five hundred, Franky.
Collins then talks for a while about the responses to his work. The majority, apparently, are ever-so-thankful that they can accept near scientific fact, but can still retain their superstitions. The harshest stuff he receives comes from fundies (humorous, but sadly unsurprising.)
He gives some reasonably harmless stuff about stepping back and trying to reconcile science and religious, then says there’s a great deal of compatibility, something else debunked in The God Delusion.
Frank then confirms, oh-so-generously, that Genesis is absurd as a scientific hypothesis.
He points out Geneses 1 and 2 the discrepancies discrepancies. “Might be a tip off”, says Collins, “that every single word there is not…a historic description.”
Now some biographical fluff.
His father, a violinist, fell in love with the folk music of West Virginia. I would feel kinda bad about making fun of that.
This all essentially establishes his street cred, that he was not indoctrinated from an early age.
Now our friend Terry Gross pitches him an appalling softball about how his non-conformist upbringing allows him to resist the scientific position of atheism. How non-conformity reinforced his religion. You heard it here first, folks. 2 billion Christians in the world, and non-conformity brings you onto their side. Next, our friend Frank says that he didn’t want to consider the idea of God because “God might ask something of me.” Subtle, that. Did anyone else miss that tiny little hint about atheists?
Ah, a lovely story about how Franky got saved. He read Mere Christianity, by CS Lewis. “Faith is actually based quite squarely upon reason,” says Franky.
I…no, I don’t want to deal with this. I’ll let my buddy Martin Luther, founder of Protestantism answer for me instead:
Terry Gross asks about diseases, giving me brief hope of a difficult question-no, it’s just another softball about how DNA will improve treating/preventing genetically caused diseases. Yes, DNA will transform medicine.
It’s disgusting how he’s being allowed to use all the wonderful progress in molecular biology to link his faith with scientific progress.
Now Terry asks about stem cells. I wonder if she’ll get yelled at for not asking a question that isn’t an absurd softball. Franky says that we should take the moral issues seriously, but that there are so many embryos that would go to waste with or without research that not researching them would be ridiculous. He says that he hopes this will be resolved by cloning and other stem cell sources, and…ducks the question.
I’ll be damned. Truly, this is amazing. Terry gives him a follow up, regarding the idea of cloning. “Sure,” Franky is “against the idea of cloning an individual…we should not do that. There are all kinds of safety reasons, and there are all kinds of ethical and moral reasons why that should be off the table.” He then describes full-scale human cloning as “diabolical” and “fully off-limits.” He doesn’t support this position at all. Who’s surprised?
Last question. 35 minutes of my life down the drain. We end with another irrelevant softball about his work at the Human Genome Project. He finishes with hope for the cures for asthma, Alzheimer’s, etc, though genetics. Can’t really argue with that, other than the sleazy way that all this wonderful progress of molecular biology is associated with Collins’ faith.
First, prove the need for the answering of those questions. Here are the questions: “What happens after we die?” “Why am I here?” “What’s the meaning of life?” No evidence that anything at all happens after we die. We are here because our progenitors reproduced. The meaning of life, such as it is, is to perpetuate our own genes. If you want to propose a more complex answer, please provide reason to do so. Otherwise, parsimony negates it pretty effectively, particularly as regards something as absurdly complex as God.
Onward to the intricacy of the human genome: “[DNA] has to give you a sense of awe,” and “You can’t help but marvel,” Well, yes. It’s amazing. There is, however, no reason to suspect divine origins. Evidence.
If you’re a believer, says Collins, seeing DNA is seeing a bit of God’s creative genius, a window into God’s mind. Except, of course, there isn’t any evidence for the existence of god. DNA is complex. The Joint-Strike Fighter is complex. Neither, unless you have real evidence otherwise, was created by a god.
Now, Terry Gross asks if Collins thought it was inappropriate to bring God into the announcement of the human genome project’s success. (This announcement, by the way, is a really appalling bit of propaganda, with Clinton and Collins speaking like a religious tract.)
Collins gives us a lovely bandwagon fallacy to start off, that most of America is religious, therefore it was appropriate. He then says that “at a moment like that, ought we not to stand back and be a little more than mechanical in our thinking?” Why no, Frank, no, we ought not. Not unless you provide proof for something out there beyond what we have observed.DNA, he says at last, is “a glimpse of” “something larger than us.”
Not to be a broken record, but EVIDENCE?
Now some solid information regarding DNA. He discusses the immense complexity of DNA, our similarity to other humans, etc. No religious claptrap in here. Collins describes DNA as drawing connections to animals and being “far more powerful than the fossil record,” and quite good evidence for evolution. This is accurate, AFAIK.
Now, the good stuff (Oh, how naïve I was when I took this note). How does Collins reconcile empiricism with Faith? He…quotes the Bible. “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen. Evidence, interesting, right there in the definition.” That’s right. Definition, he said. Religious texts are our new dictionaries, and suddenly it’s OK to beat your wife for that cold pot roast, or to massacre the entire populace of a nation that you’ve conquered.
As evidence, Collins quotes the human knowledge of right and wrong and the “fine-tuning of the universe”. Both debunked easily in The God Delusion alone.
Then, he describes atheist scientists as attempting to “disprove God.” Another inaccuracy, of course.
Science, he says, is FORCED (yes, his words) to remain silent regarding God, because of NOMA. Metaphor time! The “net” of science has a mesh size too large to “catch” God. How can there possibly be a “mesh size” too large to catch an omnipotent, omniscient being who meddles frequently in human affairs?
Some more fact, thankfully. He acknowledges evolution as almost incontrovertibly true. He says, then, that God gave us the ability to read the truth of evolution. He says that as a believer who looks to The Bible for answers, he has no problem with evolution. He takes the typical sub-fundie position of “Genesis is not a science textbook.”
Oh good. He describes his belief as “Theistic Evolution.” Gross. Seriously, gross. Goes on a while describing evolution as God’s tool of creation.
Please. Occams razor for five hundred, Franky.
Collins then talks for a while about the responses to his work. The majority, apparently, are ever-so-thankful that they can accept near scientific fact, but can still retain their superstitions. The harshest stuff he receives comes from fundies (humorous, but sadly unsurprising.)
He gives some reasonably harmless stuff about stepping back and trying to reconcile science and religious, then says there’s a great deal of compatibility, something else debunked in The God Delusion.
Frank then confirms, oh-so-generously, that Genesis is absurd as a scientific hypothesis.
He points out Geneses 1 and 2 the discrepancies discrepancies. “Might be a tip off”, says Collins, “that every single word there is not…a historic description.”
Now some biographical fluff.
His father, a violinist, fell in love with the folk music of West Virginia. I would feel kinda bad about making fun of that.
This all essentially establishes his street cred, that he was not indoctrinated from an early age.
Now our friend Terry Gross pitches him an appalling softball about how his non-conformist upbringing allows him to resist the scientific position of atheism. How non-conformity reinforced his religion. You heard it here first, folks. 2 billion Christians in the world, and non-conformity brings you onto their side. Next, our friend Frank says that he didn’t want to consider the idea of God because “God might ask something of me.” Subtle, that. Did anyone else miss that tiny little hint about atheists?
Ah, a lovely story about how Franky got saved. He read Mere Christianity, by CS Lewis. “Faith is actually based quite squarely upon reason,” says Franky.
I…no, I don’t want to deal with this. I’ll let my buddy Martin Luther, founder of Protestantism answer for me instead:
Martin Luther said:Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God.
Terry Gross asks about diseases, giving me brief hope of a difficult question-no, it’s just another softball about how DNA will improve treating/preventing genetically caused diseases. Yes, DNA will transform medicine.
It’s disgusting how he’s being allowed to use all the wonderful progress in molecular biology to link his faith with scientific progress.
Now Terry asks about stem cells. I wonder if she’ll get yelled at for not asking a question that isn’t an absurd softball. Franky says that we should take the moral issues seriously, but that there are so many embryos that would go to waste with or without research that not researching them would be ridiculous. He says that he hopes this will be resolved by cloning and other stem cell sources, and…ducks the question.
I’ll be damned. Truly, this is amazing. Terry gives him a follow up, regarding the idea of cloning. “Sure,” Franky is “against the idea of cloning an individual…we should not do that. There are all kinds of safety reasons, and there are all kinds of ethical and moral reasons why that should be off the table.” He then describes full-scale human cloning as “diabolical” and “fully off-limits.” He doesn’t support this position at all. Who’s surprised?
Last question. 35 minutes of my life down the drain. We end with another irrelevant softball about his work at the Human Genome Project. He finishes with hope for the cures for asthma, Alzheimer’s, etc, though genetics. Can’t really argue with that, other than the sleazy way that all this wonderful progress of molecular biology is associated with Collins’ faith.
Last edited:
.