What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Nintendo(R) Wii(TM) view!
bestbuygiftadvice.com - Best Buy(R) Twelpforce(TM) Carolers rock on about the Nintendo(R) Wii(TM) as an awesome family gift.
880 Comments
- aaaleman, on 04/06/2008, -97/+559Collins has been heavily criticized for his newfound tendency to see natural phenomena as 'proof' of religious dogma. Though he is right on a certain point, religious and science need not be at war or be mutually exclusive.
He was compelled by the beauty and complexity of DNA, it inspired him and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's even a nice thing that it made him religiously devout and spiritually amazed. Collins error in scientific judgment is in stating that the genome is proof of God. Not it is not. It is unscientific to say so, because there is no logical link between the two.
There are countless successful scientists that are also very religious and of many faiths, but they are wise enough to know the marked difference between what the scientific method explains and what faith explains. Collins has lost much of his current scientific credibility because his views border dangerously on creationism. - inactive, on 04/06/2008, -8/+136Don't know who said it but:
"Which has a grander view, the telescope or the microscope?" - callinthelaw69, on 04/06/2008, -128/+220He found God because of the complexity of DNA?
That's like saying he found God because water is wet. - eavesdrop, on 04/06/2008, -35/+113You can believe in God and still believe in science, without the religion baggage. God does not equal to Religion.
- TheCatsPants, on 04/06/2008, -6/+73"dynamic processing of a multidimensional programming construct of 3.1 billion sequences no bigger than DNA size"
It's pretty obvious that you absolutely no knowledge of genetics, or biology. - smacksaw, on 04/06/2008, -21/+84"Collins believes that science cannot be used to refute the existence of God because it is confined to the “natural” world."
I believe that religion cannot be used to refute the existence of scientific fact because religion is confined to the spiritual world. Keep that in mind, Kansas. It works both ways. - WarWraith, on 04/06/2008, -10/+66Every. Bloody. Thread.
Someone makes this stupid quote. It's like the atheist version of Pascal's Wager (OMG, I have to make that statement in the thread! No-one has ever heard it before!)
"Science = Questions that might never be answered
Religion = Answers that must NEVER be questioned"
Well, the Science part is right.
Which religion has as one of its guiding principles "NEVER question this?" Sure fundamentalists of any stripe encourage you to swallow the party line, and get cranky for questioning it, but fortunately no atheist ever does that.
Hell, I grew up in a fundie pentecostal home that encouraged me to ask questions. To question the answers. Which is inconsistent with your oft-quoted generalisation, but why don't you go ahead and digg down anything that does disagree with your statement.
Can't let facts get in the way of a good old stereotype. And after all, if it's said enough times, it MUST be true! - saadghauri, on 04/06/2008, -16/+62I am a religious person, and yes the complexity of things make me believe in god. I don't even know whats wrong with this or how this is unscientific. This is nothing but an attack on this scientist's beliefs. He never said that science is wrong.
Further more i don't understand how Evolution is anti-religion. I am a Muslim, and the Quran says that god created everything, doesn't say how. Maybe god did it through evolution. I just don't understand why Christians have such a problem with evolution.
And a question, if you believe god made everything through evolution, are you a creationist? Honest question - AforAlexander, on 04/06/2008, -1/+44The quote by Einstein used in the article is often mistakenly used to show that Einstein was a regilious person. In fact he was not. He believed in a god or force that releaved himself through the workings of the universe (spinoza's god) rather than a personal god that intervenes with humans daily lives.
- DavidGX, on 04/06/2008, -52/+95Previously religious scientist uses his current project to push religion. He didn't suddenly become super-christy. Buried as inaccurate.. and stupid.
- Berkana, on 04/06/2008, -5/+47A lot of people mis-understand what creationism is; creationism is belief in the creation account of the Bible, which someone can't infer without reading it from the Bible. Believing God had something to do with the origins of the universe and of life and that something intelligent was involved in the origin of life is not, strictly speaking, the same thing as creationism. Heck, some UFO cults think aliens are responsible, which, technically speaking, matches the criteria for the "intelligent design" school of thought, but clashes with creationism. The article says he believes in a sort of "theistic evolution," a view that is rejected by creationists. Creationists reject the notion that evolution had anything to do with the origins of species nor with the origins of humankind.
- esteskid, on 04/06/2008, -1/+40maybe if you zoom in far enough with both you'll end up looking at the same thing
- Czechxican, on 04/06/2008, -35/+72Fully expecting this to get dugg down, I say the following: Half of you on Digg are no better than the religious nutcases you crtique. Athiesim is your religion and anyone who believes differently is wrong. Is that much different than a christian calling a muslim faith the wrong belief? I can't believe the audacity of Digg users to claim a man must be dumb to accept or believe in a higher being. This man discovered things you and I could probably never have known and yet as soon as he finds god, his intelligence is trvialized. As a believe in God and in Science, I think anyone who believes that religion and science are mutually exclusive is either close minded, or someone who is unwilling to take a closer look at how the two are compatible.
- Diderotten, on 04/06/2008, -13/+48I'm calling BS on his version of theistic evolution. Man can't evolve further? As a population, we will continue to change, by way of both natural and artificial selection.
- inactive, on 04/06/2008, -21/+55Romans 1:20-22
...for the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools... - MrColdheart, on 04/06/2008, -23/+57multidimensional programming construct ?!
science doesnt show anything about creationism. - solidus636, on 04/06/2008, -14/+47HAHA. Not on digg.
- rjc5056, on 04/06/2008, -11/+44Hiscity is absolutely right. It's just that every opinion is not equal. People don't seem to get that anymore. If it's your opinion that the Earth is flat and mine is that it's spherical, your opinion is yours to keep but essentially worth jack *****, while mine is merely on par with the rest of the rational world's with not much more importance. Mine's just infinitely more valid is all.
- KegBol, on 04/06/2008, -12/+39As an atheist, I find it depressing and hypocritical that so many atheists to have so much vitriol for people of faith. A belief that justice will come in the end gives so many people something to hope for and so much comfort in their times of need. That's a beautiful thing, especially when your life is *****, like so many are.
And before you start bombing me with arguments about religiously-inspired violence and hypocrisy, just remember how much of life is like that. Some people take anything too far, but 99.9% of religious people are just as balanced as 99.9% of atheists. Bad guys just need an excuse to be bad, not a cause.
Relax Diggers, some people still need a mental crutch and you are not helping them by saying they are stupid for needing it. - troopa, on 04/06/2008, -3/+30"Its?" You can't even spell. Shut up. :)
- Diderotten, on 04/06/2008, -2/+29The Smelloscope
- DiggLive, on 04/06/2008, -9/+35Ben: Do you believe in God, Jack?
Jack: Do you?
Ben: Two days after I found out I had a fatal tumor on my spine, a spinal surgeon fell out of the sky, and if that's not proof of God, I don't know what is. - MrColdheart, on 04/06/2008, -17/+43creationism conflicts with science.
- McReynolds, on 04/06/2008, -10/+36Many of you are rushing to bash the guy based on some sensationalized article. I have heard him give a talk and many of us just went there to bash him for being unscientific and having unfounded views. At the end of the talk which lasted about 11/2 hour, only about 10 people out of 300 or so hard questions. Many of us who went in "to get the better of him" realized he was completely logical and was way smarter than we were. Not a single person could point a finger to say he was wrong, the same way he could not point a finger to say non believers were wrong. There just isn't enough information on either side of the argument to prove or dismiss the other side, therefore the ultimate reason for belief/disbelief in the existence of a creator cannot be scientific.
Science has no side in this argument, but rather it is the human perception of science that influences the decision of which side to take. I see so many reasons to bash the guy talked about in the article, but that would be insincere of me who with my fellow big head science grad students flanked with bigger headed well respected profs were speechless after listening to the guy. - painperdu, on 04/06/2008, -11/+35" , . . .Collins believes that science cannot be used to refute the existence of God because it is confined to the “natural” world. . . ."
Religion is unnatural. Scientist study natural things. Collins ceases to be a scientist when he ceases to study natural things. - Aethirig, on 04/06/2008, -0/+23I get the same feeling of awe every time my code compiles.
- smacksaw, on 04/06/2008, -2/+24Cyclops.
- inactive, on 04/06/2008, -2/+24In Molecular Biology, GOD FINDS YOU!
- zmjone2992, on 04/06/2008, -1/+23Also a belief in God doesn't mean Christianity.
- theone3, on 04/06/2008, -5/+24You're listening to Richard Dawkins for humility? Religious arguments aside, I don't think anyone could reasonably say Dawkins has humility.
- Tayls, on 04/06/2008, -5/+24I agree. Objectively, the genome project exposing "proof" is like saying, the first sentient beings to see the complexity of a leaf or snow immediately made the link to an invisible, all mighty being ruling over them. He's conditioned, like most, to believe that, though. Why can't we just enjoy the same sense of awe we had as children that was stamped out by explanation or illogical wives tales over the years? And that's just it: feeling like a kid, not knowing all the answers, but certainly knowing enough, leads people to throw their hands in the air and say, "Must be this...God...everyone is talking about." Why not take the phenomenal as a gift, as something to allow you to feel the joy of amazement once more? Listen to music that makes you feel bigger than you are. Be amazed by the PEOPLE behind it, not the "creator" of air particles that allows it to be audible. Just an example, of course, but I'm just amazed that people aren't more impressed with the little, but still great, achievements we as humans have worked up to over the course of time. He should be amazed by the research and decades of work that went into actually being able to map genes to begin with. Who knows. Maybe he's just getting old and scared.
- inactive, on 04/06/2008, -2/+21I am also an atheist, but my beef with religion is simply that it interferes with American politics and legislation (and stands in the way of scientific progress or funding as a result).
I don't want my politicians believeing that a god is in control of the country; I want them to take personal responsibility and let their free will guide them, not a Bible. - dougdiggerton, on 04/06/2008, -5/+22I think that it is a miracle that this article made the front page of digg
- jd5alive, on 04/06/2008, -6/+22He was given a copy of C S Lewis’s Mere Christianity, which argues that God is a rational possibility. The book transformed his life. “It was an argument I was not prepared to hear,” he said. “I was very happy with the idea that God didn’t exist, and had no interest in me. And yet at the same time, I could not turn away.”
anyone here confident enough in their beliefs to challenge them? - marius404, on 04/06/2008, -7/+23This is very old. Also, the god that Collins believes in is the christian god. Do you know what it was that caused him to reach his conclusion? It was not the human genome. It was a water fall frozen into three parts which he took to represent the trinity. He thought it was a message from god. How foolish is that?
- DiggsOnlyJew, on 04/06/2008, -1/+17I love when people think there is such a thing as winning an argument on the Internet.
- atherixx, on 04/06/2008, -7/+23Ah, Collins - the designer of the genome would have to be even more complex than his/her creation, by many orders of magnitude. If complexity implies a designer, doesn't this imply that the designer must also have a creator?
- MrColdheart, on 04/06/2008, -127/+143Is that all it takes to convince people in an invisible man?
This guy gets an emotional feeling of awe after looking at the complexity of the genome which is understandable, who wouldn't?
This guy is writing a book about his spirituality nothing scientific. - plnegative1, on 04/06/2008, -8/+23RTFA, He discovered faith from his critical patients - he is held in awe by DNA because of its complexity (DUE TO EVOLUTION) as a product of God's foresight. This man has done more for the progress of science than you or any other "digger" can imagine and you belittle him because he has faith? You guys are stupid. Just stupid. Your minds are so closed that if anyone even mentions faith you pull the "dumbass" card despite all other evidence that shows this man is not a moron.
- TheCatsPants, on 04/06/2008, -29/+44Anyone looking at the universe would naturally have a feeling of awe. But to externalise that feeling and call it God is a bit medieval or, at best, child-like. And for a scientist to believe in miracles is a bit odd too, that really is totally contradictory.
- blaze03, on 04/06/2008, -6/+21Isn't it basically the same argument as the overused "only god could have designed something as complex as the eye"?
- 1337Einstein, on 04/06/2008, -1/+14Looking through a microscopic telescope with the aid of a microscope?
- loquax, on 04/06/2008, -7/+20Good for you man! I've argued the same thing. It is nice to see people of faiths other than Christians (like me) chime in on this. From what the article said, it sounded to me like he was overwhelmed by the beauty of "creation" and he saw a universal artistry underlaying everything. Call it a metaphor, or a construct, or what have you, but the attribution of a source of all beauty in design in nature is common among many intelligent men and women who hold science to be correct.
If you follow skepticism to its natural conclusion, you would have to be skeptical of even your ability to perceive reality. Once you make it there, everything is a leap of faith. - Magnus150, on 04/06/2008, -1/+14No it isn't, it is how, why, and what is Nature and the cosmos. You're thinking of theology.
- Breathern, on 04/06/2008, -4/+16http://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Prese ...
The article is a couple years old, and the book came out in 2006. Might be an interesting read though. - blaze03, on 04/06/2008, -4/+16There is no way to reconcile the Bible and evolution. It's not as simple as 1 day = x million years. For one thing, you'd have to discount the entire Adam and Eve story. If you don't take that story literally, then it becomes a slippery slope because you could then apply that to any other story in the Bible, or the Bible as a whole. Shattering your entire belief system because in reality, it is just that - a book of metaphors.
- MrColdheart, on 04/06/2008, -3/+15sorry it does contradict.
- fhornplayer, on 04/06/2008, -1/+12Why don't you read the quote, then read your comment, then tell us why you're at all competent?
- shunpike, on 04/06/2008, -0/+11Actually contrary to what you seem to believe, many scientists do believe in God, but that is not evidence for God's existence.
- ickybod, on 04/06/2008, -2/+12When you want to find god, you'll find him anywhere but when you're genuinely truthful to yourself you'll spend your whole life searching.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 884 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is