I came across this wordpress site on issues in science and faith.
Category Archives: Science
About Y-DNA
This was a note to myself to remember a few basic facts about Y-DNA and what the ftdna website was telling me.
Here is their statement:
Men do not just have one Haplogroup. They carry a “trail” of SNPs that are cumulatively passed from fathers to their sons.
Each man has many thousands of SNPs/Variants.
As of 27 March 2024, each FTDNA Big Y-700 included 639,776 Variants for each Kit’s results. (Show All: +; – ;?)
When two Kits verify a Variants existence, the Variant becomes a named SNP.
There are 20 Haplotypes: A through T.
In your example, the Haplotype is “R”.
Haplotype + SNP = Haplogroup.
In your case, you see three Equivalent SNPs in one Box on the Block Tree: FT43614; FT283922; and FTF15721.
The three SNPs formed in 3 separate and distinct Paternal Ancestors in your Tree. The names of the SNPs differ based on when they were first observed.
“BY” SNPs were named when Big Y-500 was the current test in 2029.
“FT” SNPs began in 2020 with the introduction of Big Y-700.
Once the number of “FT” SNPs reached 469,999, the names started over at “FTA”.
When “FTA” SNPs reached 99,999 the naming began again at “FTB”.
And the system continues.
The most recent SNP included in the ISOGG SNP Index is FTG641.
As of the end of March, there were 673,791 Variants/SNPs on the FTDNA Haplotree.
A Comment To Joel Duff
I wrote this to Joel Duff today. He had done a movie review of The Ark and the Darkness.
His review is called My Reaction to The Ark and the Darkness: Background, Themes and Thoughts.
On Maundy Thursday I am too busy to watch his review, perhaps tomorrow.
I said:
“I haven’t looked at the movie review yet. But today some movie fans became overly exuberant and claimed some things that are clearly wrong about how we all descend from Noah. No other humans survived anywhere on earth.
My hobby is genetic genealogy. Just today the ftdna blog announced George Washington’s Y-DNA is R-U152, which originated 4500 YBP (years before present) , ummm…during the flood!
I have low confidence that God faked DNA and high confidence that humans understand human DNA reasonably well. My church people haven’t yet told me what their confidences are or why they have them. All I know is they are affirming faith in God by affirming they believe no other humans survived the flood. They are hitching their faith in God to that wagon. I am going to guess they think they are preserving the truth of Christ. I am puzzled as to why that works. I can only guess what fallacies may be involved.
Thanks.”
https://youtu.be/yBMOZavfGiw is the URL of his review.
Why Do Christians Ignore Lexicography?
One sane man explains YEC, Concordism, and Answers In Genesis in a nutshell.
As a retired linguist, these types of discussions as to whether the sun is a star remind me of similar examples like whether or not a tomato is a vegetable. As lexicographers would say, a tomato is a CULINARY fruit but it is a BOTANTICAL vegetables. That is, it suits the purposes of chefs to include the tomato among the vegetables even while it suits the purposes of botanists to call it a fruit because it is a reproductive product containing seeds. Neither is more “correct” than they other, because tomatoes don’t care what humans call them. Accordingly, tomatoes will continue to do what tomatoes do and be what tomatoes are. The labels don’t change them. Indeed, labels and classifications/groupings are about human convenience.
To state another way: Humans have countless labelling systems which involve groupings of similar things. It is a matter of communication and convenience—but naming does NOT somehow control ontology.
Likewise, to an astronomer, the sun is just another star. But to a poet or a painter, the sun is unique in beauty and significance for human experience. It is clearly “set apart” from stars, which are mere pinpoints in the sky. Indeed, that is how the Hebrew language of Genesis reflects its culture: the sun is the greater light and the moon is the less light—and the stars are far less significant. Nothing erroneous about that. It is a matter of perspective.
By the way, Genesis 1 is clearly not meant to be a scientific treatise, so we can’t make dogmatic arguments that it requires a “separate” creation for the sun and moon versus the stars. The main theme of Genesis 1 is “God made everything” and it uses the literary form of that culture and era to declare that message. The Answers in Genesis dogma on Genesis entails all sorts of anachronistic impositions of modern cultural notions (including scientific ones) on a text from an ancient culture.
My Response:
I am not a linguist. But I have never met a Christian who is one. But they often tell you what words mean. Because they KNOW. Or do they?
David Buddrige says,
I agree (with Reverend Graham) on this point.Genesis isn’t talking about biological life, but rather spiritual life.You can see this by observing that God promised Adam that on the very day he ate of the fruit that he would “die”.The day he ate the fruit, he didn’t (physically) drop dead, but what *did* happen was that he was thrown out of Eden, and lost his friendly relationship with God.Consequently, what “death” *means* in the Bible is to be thrown out of God’s place and out of relationship with God.If “death” means to lose one’s relationship with God, then to be alive means to gain the relationship with God.Therefore when the Genesis creation account says that God breathed the breath of life into Adam, he is describing that moment in history when the biological human creature first became aware of their special relationship with God and the promise of blessing and life with him – if only they would look to God for the definition of good and bad.It is for this reason that Paul could – with a straight face – tell the Ephesians that they were previously “dead”, and had now been made alive in Christ.
Excellent! This is another point where a linguist can tell us how words work.
My take on the subject is the concordists are wrapped around the axel on the topic of death in the world before Adam sinned. But the bible isn’t talking about biological death. it is talking about spiritual death. The concordists actually have a DOCTRINAL DISPUTE with other Christians.
If the Sun Is Created on Day 4, What Is the Light on Day 1?
If the Sun Is Created on Day 4, What Is the Light on Day 1?
TESTING POSTING OF LINKS INTO A FACEBOOK PAGE.
https://www.thetorah.com/article/if-the-sun-is-created-on-day-4-what-is-the-light-on-day-1
https://randomraindrops.com/day-1/
https://www.thetorah.com/article/if-the-sun-is-created-on-day-4-what-is-the-light-on-day-1
https://www.thetorah.com/article/if-the-sun-is-created-on-day-4-what-is-the-light-on-day-1
https://randomraindrops.com/day-1/
https://www.thetorah.com/article/if-the-sun-is-created-on-day-4-what-is-the-light-on-day-1
https://www.thetorah.com/article/if-the-sun-is-created-on-day-4-what-is-the-light-on-day-1
https://randomraindrops.com/day-1/
Return of the God Hypothesis
An interesting review I saw on amazon.com
“A comprehensive and lucid argument for theism as the best explanation for the scientific evidence. Stephen Meyer has a true gift for conveying complex concepts clearly.” — Dr. Robert Kaita, former Principal Research Physicist, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
“A meticulously researched, lavishly illustrated, and thoroughly argued case against the new atheism. Even if your mind is made up—especially if it is—Meyer’s refreshing take on the origins of the Universe is a joy to read. You may not come away convinced, but you’ll be richer for the journey.” — Dr. Brian Keating, Chancellor’s Distinguished Professor of Physics, University of California, San Diego, and author of Losing the Nobel Prize.
“Scientist and philosopher Meyer has discussed intelligent design previously but has not gone as far as he does here in terms of making the case for God. He does so citing new evidence from cosmology, physics, and biology, especially as it applies to DNA research. Meyer knows how to take readers’ hands and lead them through the history before showing how new discoveries can be used to undermine the cases made by anti-design theorists such as Richard Dawkins, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and even Bill Nye the Science Guy. Agree or disagree, there’s lots to ponder here.” — Booklist
“Meyer’s book is a masterclass, lucidly exploring every alternative from multiple points of view, while persuasively showing that the God Hypothesis is the best explanation of our finely-tuned, information-rich universe. It does irreparable damage to atheist rhetoric.” — John C. Walton, PhD, DSc, Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Research Professor of Chemistry, University of St. Andrews
“No one in my experience can explicate such complex material with the grace and clarity that seem so effortless to Stephen Meyer. With meticulous rational analysis of the latest discoveries in cosmology, physics, and biology, Meyer confirms a truth ideologues find too frightening to consider. Their ad hominem attacks on his brilliant work, confirm its importance.” — Dean Koontz, New York Times #1 bestselling author
“Reviewing all relevant evidence from cosmology to molecular biology, Meyer builds an irrefutable ‘case for God.’ The logic throughout is compelling and the book almost impossible to put down. A masterpiece. Easily the best, most lucid, comprehensive defense of the ‘God hypothesis’ in print. A unique tour de force. ” — Michael Denton, M.D., Ph.D., former Senior Research Fellow, Biochemistry, University of Otago, Author, Nature’s Destiny
“More than 400 pages of straightforward, engrossing prose, close reasoning, intellectual history, and cosmology, all in the interest of asking the most important questions about existence itself. An astonishing achievement.” — Peter Robinson, Murdoch Distinguished Policy Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and former White House speechwriter
“With this book, Stephen Meyer earns a place in the pantheon of distinguished, non-reductive natural philosophers of the last 120 years, from the great French savant Pierre Duhem, through A.N. Whitehead, to Michael Polanyi…A profound, judicious book of great value bringing to bear advanced, scientific expertise and philosophical, integrative wisdom.” — Dr. Michael D. Aeschliman, emeritus professor Boston University, author The Restoration of Man: C.S. Lewis and the Continuing Case Against Scientism.
“Meyer masterfully summarizes the current evidence from cosmology, physics and biology showing that the more we learn about the universe and nature, the more relevant the ‘God hypothesis’ becomes.” — Dr. Anthony Futerman, Joseph Meyerhoff Professor of Biochemistry, Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel
“This book makes it clear that far from being an unscientific claim, intelligent design is valid science.” — Brian Josephson, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Cambridge, Fellow of the Royal Society Nobel Laureate in Physics
“When you don’t understand living systems, ignorance permits discounting a Creator. But when the scientific details are thrust upon you, you’re forced to ask: How on Earth did that happen? Thus, the God hypothesis returns. Stephen Meyer convincingly drives the point home: How could it be this way? Only God!” — James M. Tour, Ph.D., T. T. and W. F. Chao Professor of Chemistry and Professor of Nano-Engineering, Rice University.
“Stephen Meyer is a genuine renaissance person. His work tears down many purported barriers between science, philosophy, and religion. An important book of both breadth and depth.” — Dr. Henry F. Schaefer III, Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry, Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry, University of Georgia
“Dr. Meyer does a superb job in accurately describing the physics and cosmology that show the universe had a beginning. He also convincingly shows that quantum mechanics will not eliminate a cosmological singularity.” — Dr. Frank Tipler, Professor of Physics, Tulane University; Co-Author, The Anthropic-Cosmological Principle (Oxford University Press)
“A truly superb analysis of the relevant evidence.Stephen Meyer convincingly demonstrates that the God hypothesis is not just an adequate explanation for the origin of our fine-tuned universe and biosphere: it is the best explanation.” — David J Galloway, MD DSc FRCS FRCP, Honorary Professor of Surgery at College of Medical, Veterinary & Life Sciences University of Glasgow; Former President, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow.
“A pleasure to read, [Meyer’s] inviting voice brings light to bear on complicated and profoundly influential subjects. With this abundantly rich book, Meyer completes a compelling trilogy which refutes the prevailing materialism of the intelligentsia.” — Terry Scrambay, journalist and reviewer for New Oxford Review
“I commend Meyer’s book to those who believe science and religion are in conflict, and indeed to anyone seeking answers to the ultimate questions.” — The Claremont Review of Books
Shadow Banning
This came from a recent discussion about blog sites not being able to be posted on facebook and seen in the facebook browser.
Susan Lambeau, Looking at the facebook post in a browser if you click on the picture it launches a new browser window (the default browser of your system) and goes to https://phys.org/news/2023-12-theory-einstein-gravity-quantum-mechanics.html which is the URL of the article at phys.org. But using the facebook app what happens is you cannot get to phys.org. Instead Facebook generates a new web page that looks like the page at the above URL and send you to there, but inside the facebook app.
The implication here is facebook can censor the content. If they don’t want someone reporting on adverse side effects, for example, they can ban that.
Legally they can do that because they own the content on their website. They do not own the content on outside websites.
Even if you put the URL “https://phys.org/news/2023-12-theory-einstein-gravity-quantum-mechanics.html” on your facebook post people using the app will not be able to see the URL. They filter it out and re-write the display that is rendered.
This is important. Why? Well, for example, there is a recent scientific paper published in Canada about contamination level of DNA fragments in Pfizer covid vaccines. Facebook will not allow discussion of the paper. You cannot post the paper. You cannot post a link to a website talking about the paper either. They just remove your post. Sometimes they warn you not to try doing it again. The information is suppressed. This is one of the reasons people blog – to avoid censorship.
One of the side effects I recently noticed was it is not possible to get to a certain blog on medium.com where there are book reviews of books on science. The owner puts the link on her facebook group but facebook app users cannot get to the site to give feedback to the reviewer.
Really old people who still have computers and know what a browser is are slightly better off. But the new gen-alpha audience is totally locked into phones. Even my 40 year old daughter in law does not know what a browser is. And her kids have never seen a computer.
I think there is a word for this. I have heard it called “shadow banning”. The idea is to prevent unauthorized information from being viral. Or being capable of being viral.
So if a research scientist or an MD wants to say something that is “forbidden” she may be subject to shadow banning. Was there much of that happening during the lockdowns? You tell me!
When I travel I usually do not access facebook from a computer, but use a phone. I miss being able to copy a URL to paste into a note for later retrieval.
for example, the book review site. I had to ask the owner to message me the URL.
I hope this helps explain some of my concern. I want an open world wide web, not one that is controlled by a coalition of big tech that chokes off information.
Thanks!
Todays YEC Rumors
A friend posted this:
I wrote to her the following:
My friend David Rhoads tells me the YEC people claim the laws of physics change (when it is convenient for their viewpoint). I dont know if thats true. It seems to be. He has studied this for years. So, let us assume its true. God changes the laws of physics. OK, so then tell me why God cannot tweak the DNA of 100 organisms in a species to cause 50 reproducing pairs to suddenly exist to make a new species?
If God can and does change the laws of physics WHY cant he spawn a new species every day of the week?
Keep in mind the YEC claim is that the ENTIRE COSMOS had the laws of physics changed the first few days of creation and also changed the day Adam sinned.
Their claim is the speed of light everywhere changed.
Well, thats waaaaaaayyyyyy bigger of an effect on the universe than making a new species would be on tiny little earth.
So I am having a hard time understanding why god cannot do macroevolution.
I dont believe in naturalistic macro-evolution. I believe in theistic-macro-evolution. So to me what we seen in the natural world and what we see in the bible is One-Seamless-Truth.
So….”Evolution requires a lot more faith than the Creator view”… why do the YEC people limit God’s power? They believe God cannot do evolution. He is constrained to only being able to do creative acts at the beginning. Even if it means he changed all the physical laws of the universe. But during history? Oh, well, he is not allowed to tweak biology.
So I think this evolution versus theology idea seems to be a false dichotomy invented in the middle of the 19th century.
If we believe God can heal people and can resurrect people, why cant he make new species? I don’t get it. I used to go visit Henry Morris at his school in San Diego. I believed his world view. But now it doesnt make any sense.
On Cosmic Origins
LINK TO THIS POST: https://randomraindrops.com/2023/11/30/on-cosmic-origins/
Image of LINK TO THIS POST
On cosmic origins, Sy Garte says on page 52 of his book The Works Of His Hands,
“The third possible solution, one that is not commonly considered to be within the realm of science, is that God created the universe in a way that allowed stars, planets, and us to exist. While scientists typically reject any supernatural explanations, it must be said that the God hypothesis is not any more removed from testing or scientific confirmation than the multiverse. Therefore, a rational thinker is free to choose between two equally plausible and equally non-provable ideas. I now choose God.”
Let me pull out the two conclusions.
1. THE GOD HYPOTHESIS IS NOT ANY MORE REMOVED FROM TESTING OR SCIENTIFIC CONFIRMATION THAN THE MULTIVERSE.
2. THEREFORE A RATIONAL THINKER IS FREE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN TWO EQUALLY NON_PROVABLE IDEAS. I NOW CHOOSE GOD.
Lets look at how Sy leads up to the third possible solution and his conclusions. Lets see what he says about the other two logical possible solutions.
Sy Garte On Cosmic Origins
Starting on page 49 of his kindle book The Works of His Hands Sy says the following about “Fine Tuning in Cosmology”
“What I learned about chaos and complexity helped remove my faith in materialism, rationalism, and the other philosophical reasons I started out with for not believing in God. But I also learned something that was more radical—something that actually made me think of a Creator God as a rational idea, or at least as rational as any alternative. This lesson did not make me a theist (that is still to come), but it did suggest a positive reason to believe rather than merely taking away reasons not to believe. That lesson was the fine-tuning of the cosmological constants.
Most physical laws include arbitrary constants that cannot be derived from theory but can only be measured experimentally—they simply are what they are. I will discuss the unsolvable mystery of the physical constants as an example of a hard limit on what we can discover through science in chapter 8. But for a small subset of these constants, the mystery has even greater significance. These are the cosmological constants—the constants related to how the universe was initially formed.
There are anywhere from six to about twenty of these numbers (depending on different interpretations), and it turns out that their values are highly fortuitous. If they were at all different (in some cases by extremely small differences), our kind of universe couldn’t exist, and neither could we.
According to modern physics, there are four forces that underlie all the physical laws of the universe. Two nuclear forces, the strong force and the weak force, govern interactions between particles within the atomic nuclei. At the other end of the scale of object size, interactions between large bodies such as stars, planets, and galaxies are dependent on the third force, gravity. Finally, magnetic and electrical forces between atoms and subatomic particles are different aspects of the fourth, the electromagnetic force.“
Ok, so far so good. I think we need to come back to this “unsolvable mystery of the physical constants”
The great goal of modern physics has been to find a unified theory that can integrate all these forces with each other and show how each force is related by some logical mathematical formulation to all the others. Some progress has been made. The weak force and the electromagnetic force have been shown to be interrelated; at a very early stage in the history of the universe (within the first billionth of a second of the start of the big bang), these two forces were actually one.
The relative strengths of the four forces are determined by specific equations that include some of the cosmological constants. Martin Rees, the distinguished British astronomer, writes in his book Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe that these four physical constants (and two others) need to be exactly the values they are, or the universe would be radically different than it is. Changes in any of these constants would make stars, planets, and life impossible.
The fraction of the mass of two hydrogen atoms that is released as energy when they fuse to produce helium is 0.007 (0.7%). That is the source of the heat produced in the sun and in a hydrogen bomb. It is the amount of mass (m) that is converted to energy (E) in the famous Einstein formula E = mc2, and it is a direct measure of the strong nuclear force. If the strong force had a value of 0.006 or less, the universe would consist only of hydrogen—not very conducive to the complexities of life. If the value were greater than 0.008, all the hydrogen would have been fused shortly after the big bang, and there could be no stars, no solar heat—again, no life.
As Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow put it in their book The Grand Design, “Our universe and its laws appear to have a design that both is tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration.”2
There are three possible solutions to the mystery of fine-tuning of the physical constants. One is that there is in fact a good theoretical explanation for these constants, and it will turn out that they had to be exactly what they are. This explanation would most likely be derived from the long-sought “theory of everything,” which will connect gravity to quantum physics and answer all questions. However, the theory of everything has so far been elusive. The latest disappointing results from CERN, the largest particle physics laboratory in the world, cast further doubt on these expectations.3
Another possibility is that there are or have been an infinite number of universes. We happen to be in this one because this is the only one out of billions or trillions, each with different constants and characteristics, that we could be in. The multiverse theory is favored by many physicists, but it has the problem of being unprovable, since information cannot travel between universes.
Lets re-iterate the three possible solutions.
1. THEORY OF EVERYTHING (that connects gravity to quantum physics and explains everything)
2. INFINITE NUMBER OF UNIVERSES (unprovable)
3. GOD (unprovable)
Origins and Science Note 1.
The mobile version removes background colors and images. Then in the facebook app they edit the words. They remove links so you cannot click them.
On November 28, 2023 I made a note of a discussion on origins, below. It has to do with YEC.
David Rhoads and Susan Haywood. Off topic of what the OP was….but …. I am puzzled by the theology of anyone who claims God can and did alter cosmological constants like the speed of light willy nilly and they think that is perfectly proper. But God cannot tweak mutations in DNA. For example, in a population of organisms God cannot invoke a mutation in two individuals or in 100 individuals all at the same time in order to make a new species that can reproduce with itself. That is too much for God to do, yet he can alter the physics of the entire universe! Are they serious?
I also do not see where the bible makes any claim about physics or about biology or DNA or species. Seems to me beliefs about these topics are conclusions jumped to by fallible humans. They are contrived notions or fabricated notions. Where does the bible say God cannot be involved in the evolution of biological organisms? Why do YEC’s believe God is forbidden to do any such interaction with biology in the universe? And yet he can snap His fingers and the speed of light changes “just like that” based on some decision some human made 6000 years ago. It makes no sense to me as a theology.
Here is the link: [Facebook users copy and paste into a URL in a browser to go to web page]
https://randomraindrops.com/2023/11/28/origins-and-science-note-1/
Conflict of Religion and Science
Language of God Excerpt #3
While reading Language of God something important caught my eye and I wrote about it at the time.
This is cross posted here: https://randomraindrops.com/2023/10/21/naturalism-of-the-gaps/
Francis Collins writes,
Science is not the only way of knowing. The spiritual worldview finds another way of finding truth. scientists who deny this would be well advised to observe the limits of their own tools, as nicely represented in a parable old by astronomer Arthur Eddington.
He [Eddington] described a man who set about to study deep-sea life using a net that had a mesh size of three inches. After catching many wild and wonderful creatures from the depths, the man concluded there are no deep-sea fish that are smaller than three inches in length! If we are using the scientific net to catch our particular version of truth, we should not be surprised that it does not catch the evidence of spirit.
Reference: Language of God, p 229 https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744
Collins is quoting this fellow:
Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington OM FRS[2] (28 December 1882 – 22 November 1944) was an English astronomer, physicist, and mathematician. He was also a philosopher of science and a populariser of science. The Eddington limit, the natural limit to the luminosity of stars, or the radiation generated by accretion onto a compact object, is named in his honour.
My remarks:
Eddington points out an epistemological mistake that is then used to draw an ontological conclusion that is not warranted. This is exactly what believers in philosophical naturalism (PN) commit when they tell us “science says there is no god.” PN believers are actually asserting that the natural world comprises all of reality and therefore theists must give up theism because the supernatural is impossible. This, BTW, is scientism.
I label this as Naturalism of the Gaps. I coined the phrase as a satire and later realized it is a serious position that invokes questions about human knowledge. I recently mentioned Naturalism of the Gaps to Jonathon Blocker. That afternoon I also read the remarks by Collins. It seems many physicists and philosophers have pondered these questions. I only noticed it because of the virulent and boisterous criticism of theists by science students who are looking for their daily student dose of confirmation bias.
Language of God Excerpt #2
The poverty of an objectivistic account is made only too clear when we consider the mystery of music. From a scientific point of view it is nothing but vibrations in the air, impinging on the eardrums and stimulating neural currents in the brain.
How does it come about that this banal sequence of temporal activity has the power to speak to our hearts of an eternal beauty? The whole range of subjective experience, from perceiving a patch of pink, to being enthralled by the performance of a Mass in B Minor, and on to the mystic’s encounter with the ineffable reality of the One, all these truly human experiences are at the center of our encounter with reality, and they are not to be dismissed as epiphenomenal froth on the surface of a universe whose true nature is impersonal and lifeless.
REFERENCE:
J. Polkinghorne, Belief in God in an age of Science (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), 18 – 19.
Science is not the only way of knowing. The spiritual world view provides another way of finding truth.
REFERENCE:
Francis Collins, Language of God, p. 229.
Language of God Excerpt #1
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
REFERENCE: A. Einstein, “Science, Philosophy, and Religion: A Symposium” (1941)
Naturalism of the Gaps
Francis Collins writes,
Science is not the only way of knowing. The spiritual worldview finds another way of finding truth. scientists who deny this would be well advised to observe the limits of their own tools, as nicely represented in a parable old by astronomer Arthur Eddington.
He [Eddington] described a man who set about to study deep-sea life using a net that had a mesh size of three inches. After catching many wild and wonderful creatures from the depths, the man concluded there are no deep-sea fish that are smaller than three inches in length! If we are using the scientific net to catch our particular version of truth, we should not be surprised that it does not catch the evidence of spirit.
Reference: Language of God, p 229 https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744
Collins is quoting this fellow:
Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington OM FRS[2] (28 December 1882 – 22 November 1944) was an English astronomer, physicist, and mathematician. He was also a philosopher of science and a populariser of science. The Eddington limit, the natural limit to the luminosity of stars, or the radiation generated by accretion onto a compact object, is named in his honour.
My remarks:
Eddington points out an epistemological mistake that is then used to draw an ontological conclusion that is not warranted. This is exactly what believers in philosophical naturalism (PN) commit when they tell us “science says there is no god.” PN believers are actually asserting that the natural world comprises all of reality and therefore theists must give up theism because the supernatural is impossible. This, BTW, is scientism.
I label this as Naturalism of the Gaps. I coined the phrase as a satire and later realized it is a serious position that invokes questions about human knowledge. I recently mentioned Naturalism of the Gaps to Jonathon Blocker. That afternoon I also read the remarks by Collins. It seems many physicists and philosophers have pondered these questions. I only noticed it because of the virulent and boisterous criticism of theists by science students who are looking for their daily student dose of confirmation bias.
Francis Collins Language of God
My latest audio book in September 2023. Stimulating many thoughts.
So on vacation in the mountains I listen to this. Part of the reason is the insane Answers In Genesis agonists who call everybody heretics.
Francis Collins has a degree in physical chemistry. And medicine. He took up biology and genetics after pchem. And reading CS Lewis caused him to reconsider his agnosticism and after applying some logic he became a christian!
I may have thoughts on his book after finishing it. Those will be topical and appear in various categories.
Materialism and Physics
I think this is a quote from his 2014 book. I met him at a talk he gave in Plymouth Minnesota. We exchanged emails for a while after that but I lost track of him. I am re-reading his 2014 book and I just bought his 2017 book.
Unlike Genetic Genealogists
Some insist that anthropologists need to know how an ancient human may have chosen to identify themselves.
It’s all in the DNA.
Surely You are Joking, Mr Lightman.
When an atheist (Mr.X.) declares to you “I don’t care what Alan Lightman thinks about God” you know you are talking to a narcissist.
Why?
Because Alan Lightman, to the best of my knowledge, doesn’t think anything at all about God. He isn’t a theist.
https://news.mit.edu/2021/pondering-unknowable-alan-lightman-0305
Mr X, the narcissist, is either lying or he is an idiot.
Alan Lightman isn’t talking about God and religion. He is talking about physics.
The real question about what atheism is: what does atheism really have to say to humanity? Atheists need to explain the following: “How do you know thought and mind does not exist? And if it does not, isn’t your religious world view then nihilism? Is the logical conclusion of reductionism nihilism?”
Nihilism means if thought does not exist then minds do not exist. if minds do not exist then humans do not exist. The human race does not exist. its a fantasy. and values do not exist. Love, hate, justice, hope, all these are fantasies because none of them really exist. They are figments of the imagination and have no reality.
“Well, gee, batman”, a student mutters under his breath, “the trans person with hurt feelings is just going to have to lump it, aren’t they?”
What do nihilists really have to say to humanity? Nothing. They add no value. Values do not exist in their world view.
That doesnt answer the question of, “Is the logical conclusion of reductionism nihilism?”
Atheists aren’t talking. They do not know. They rage against theists on the basis of, well, as far as I can tell, a basis of ignorance. I think Jonathon Haight describes it best. They have a preconceived conclusion, really just a moral belief, and they are looking for evidence to shore up their belief. What Jonathon Haight calls “the elephant and the rider problem.” There is a cognitive dissonance in that process, and also a dishonesty.
Alan Lightman, by contrast, ponders the unknown and the unknowable and attempts to label them. That is why is is so hilarious that Mr X boldly declares “I don’t care what Alan Lightman says about God.”
Answers In Heresy (I mean Genesis)
AIG apologist Isaac Bourne claims Christians are going to hell (cannot be saved) because they fail to follow AIG theology. Here is his argument. It depends on having a belief about the age of the earth (being young).
That’s because the worlds education requires one to accept the worlds views. You cannot be educated with secular degrees and expect not to be rejected by the groups that educated you if you proclaim God and the Bible. God plays second fiddle to no man’s: Education, opinion or whatever. Period. And when this person gets to Heaven, God won’t be opening a science book either. And Darwin won’t be sitting next to Him giving judgment on how well every accepted evolution.
Which creation belief can you use to draw people forward to salvation?
God used evolution to create? Nope.
God used millions and billions of years to create? Nope.
God’s creation is literally true aka YEC? Yep. Happens everyday.
This is why you won’t see God used evolution to create do alter calls.
This is why you won’t see God took millions and billions of years do alter calls.
Because there is no God in it therefore God will not draw people unto his Son through a lie. So those 2 teachings come back void while YEC does not.
“Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.” James 4:17 KJV
When you know what the truth is and you instead decide to believe a lie.
Then what you believe becomes a sin because you knew better. That is why the word knoweth is used. Do you know God’s Word say nothing about using evolution during creation? Of course you do. Do you know God’s Word and tracible time line supports 6-24 hour days and 6.000 years? Of course you do.
And yet you believe something else right? So your belief is now a sin, not by my opinion, but what God’s Word states. And if you do not respect God’s Word enough to accept correction then you are already lost in that sin.
Here’s what happens when you mess with God’s Word.
“And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” Revelation 22:19 KJV
And can you enter Heaven without you name in the book of life?
“And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.” Revelation 20:15 KJV
And because you now know, you can never claim true ignorance which is covered by grace because this ignorance is on purpose. YEC is just a literal belief. God’s Word judges what happens when you go outside of such things, not those who believe YEC, Did I not back up everything concerning that? Then your problem is not with YEC, it’s with God’s Word. And all we do is abide by that is that also is what you have a problem with. prove me wrong.
I said to him
Issac Bourne Origins theories have nothing to do with salvation as far as I can figure. Ive started to ask lifelong bible scholars, ordained ministers, and theologians about this. Is Christianity dependent upon a particular narrative or belief about origins? The answer I get is “no”. Salvation depends on Jesus of Nazareth and his death, burial, resurrection, and propitiation for sin, etc, etc, and faith in him and his work Age of the earth? Has nothing to do with that except you have constructed a narrative and turned it into a doctrine. The sorting of sheep and goats will depend on response to the Christ, not on opinion about origins. Unless you create some kind of “new and different?” doctrine that says judgement does depend on a believer’s opinion about origins. I dont see that requirement in the scriptures. It looks to me like this doctrine, if it is a doctrine at all, did not exist in the 1st and 2nd century but was added in modern times. Which adds doctrine to the scriptures. Its either modern additive doctrine or its not doctrine at all but instead is just personal opinion. A bit hard to tell.
I dont see the core beliefs of christianity being affected by your world view here.
Dustin Burlet, another AIG apologist says no, their belief about the bible and theology does not affect salvation per se. But if not accepted it does destroy the truth in the bible.
There is a lot to unpack here – if I have understood the scenario (about YEC) correctly much hinges on Jesus. Allow me to explain (citing C. John Collins, Science and Faith: Friends or Foes, pg. 106)
Collins states:
“The argument for a young earth . . . goes like this: the phrases ‘from the beginning of creation’ (Mark 10:6) and ‘from the beginning’ (Matt 19:4, 
do not refer to the beginning of mankind [sic] but to the beginning of creation itself. Therefore, Jesus was dating the origin of mankind [sic] to a time very shortly after the initial creation of Genesis 1:1. If there is any kind of time very shortly after the initial creation and the beginning of the creation week, or if the week itself lasts much longer than an ordinary week, then we must conclude that Jesus was mistaken (or worse, misleading), and therefore he can’t be God. “
Collins goes on to clarify:
“If this argument is sound, I’m in trouble, because . . . I cannot follow this reading of Genesis 1. On the other hand, I firmly believe in the traditional Christian doctrine of Christ, and tremble at the thought of doing anything to undermine it. But the argument is not sound. It finds its credibility from the way the English “from the beginning” seems so definite; but the Greek is not fixed in meaning. “
NB: Specifically, the use “of the article in Greek is not like use of the definite article in English, not least because Greek does not have the same choice of forms . . . Once a Greek speaker or writer chose to use the article, there was not a choice whether an indefinite or definite one would be used. Therefore, the presence or absence of an article does not make a substantive definite or indefinite.” Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament (London: Sheffield Academic 2nd. ed, 2005) 103. See too Middleton, Doctrine of the Greek Article (London: Rivington, 2nd ed, 1841). Notably, though, the term ἄρχη is not actually articular in any of the texts cited above save Matt 19:4 (Cf. John 1:1).
Irrespective of the minutia, what is clear from the above is that Collins does not dismiss the question of the age of the earth as a secondary issue. Instead, he (rightly) ties a proper understanding of these matters to biblical authority via connecting them to the doctrine of Christ (cf. John 18:37).
As such, In a similar way, Terry Mortenson asserts: “Exodus 20:8–11 resists all attempts to add millions of years anywhere in or before Genesis 1 because in Exodus 20:11 . . . God says He created the heavens, the earth, the sea, and all that is in them during the six days described in Genesis 1. He made nothing before those six days. It should also be noted that the fourth commandment is one of only a few of the Ten Commandments that contains a reason for the commandment. If God created over millions of years, He could have not given a reason for Sabbath-keeping or He could have given a theological or redemptive reason as He did elsewhere (cf. Exod 31:13 and Deut 5:13–15) . . . Ultimately, the question of the age of the earth is a question of the truth and authority of Scripture. That’s why the age of the earth matters so much and why the church cannot compromise with millions of years (or evolution).” Terry Mortenson, “Young-Earth Creationist View Summarized And Defended.” No Pages. Online. Italics original. https://answersingenesis.org/…/young-earth-creationist…/
Elsewhere, Mortenson also opines: “The . . . larger controlling thesis for this book is that the age of the creation is foundationally and critically important for Christian doctrine. It really does matter what we believe on this issue. To be sure, we are not insisting that a person must be a young-earth creationist to be saved and in a right relationship with God. Faith in Christ alone is sufficient for that. But what we believe on this topic does relate critically to inerrancy, hermeneutics, and Scripture as the final authority in all matters that it addresses.” Terry Mortenson, “Foreword,” in Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth, 20. New Leaf (2008).
Lastly, another YEC scholar (Joanthan Sarfati) maintains:
“OK, let’s assume for the sake of the argument that firstly, creation was by evolution, over millions of years of death and suffering—and that Jesus did perform some sort of lobotomy7 on Himself, so that He could no longer recall what really took place. So He just understood Genesis in the most natural straightforward way, not realizing what the real truth was. What you’re claiming in that case amounts to this: That God the Father, knowing the real truth, permitted not just the Apostles, but His beloved Son, while on Earth, to believe and teach things that were utter falsehoods. Furthermore, it means that the Father permitted these false teachings to appear—repeatedly—in His revealed Word. With the result that for some 2,000 years, the vast majority of Christians were seriously misled about such things as not just the time and manner of creation, but gospel-crucial matters such as the origin of sin, and of death and suffering.”
The doctrinal position of AIG
What you’re claiming in that case amounts to this: That God the Father, knowing the real truth, permitted not just the Apostles, but His beloved Son, while on Earth, to believe and teach things that were utter falsehoods. Furthermore, it means that the Father permitted these false teachings to appear—repeatedly—in His revealed Word. With the result that for some 2,000 years, the vast majority of Christians were seriously misled about such things as not just the time and manner of creation, but gospel-crucial matters such as the origin of sin, and of death and suffering.”
Wow, all of Christianity has been misled for 2000 years? Really?
AIG Fragility?
What I am left thinking:
Seems to me that if Adam ever stepped on a bug, or ate a bug, then death came into the world before the sin of Adam and their entire theological world view instantly collapses.
A Re-evaluation
If all the truth in the Bible were to be destroyed then how does anybody come to a saving faith in Jesus of Nazareth as their saviour? So, truth be told, perhaps the AIG belief really is about who can be a Christian? It is all about heresy.
Caveat: Is it possible for the bible to be true but AIG simply does not understand what it says? BINGO!
Is it possible for God to have spoken in parables in Genesis and the bible is still true? You see, AIG claims if Genesis is parables then the bible is not true. That is based on their opinion. Only on their opinion.