2006-11-05 Time bobbles the God and science debate

From Issuepedia
Revision as of 20:23, 6 October 2020 by Woozle (talk | contribs) (fixed & updated)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Collins just makes these grand assertions about the nature of an invisible, undetectable being as if they actually represent evidence – they don't. They are science-stoppers. Saying that an omniscient, omnipotent being who is aware of and cares about the fate of Francis Collins is a radically improbable suggestion, and just calling it "God" and insisting that he doesn't need explanation is a non-answer.

TIME: But to the extent that a person argues on the basis of faith or Scripture rather than reason, how can scientists respond?
COLLINS: Faith is not the opposite of reason. Faith rests squarely upon reason, but with the added component of revelation. So such discussions between scientists and believers happen quite readily. But neither scientists nor believers always embody the principles precisely. Scientists can have their judgment clouded by their professional aspirations. And the pure truth of faith, which you can think of as this clear spiritual water, is poured into rusty vessels called human beings, and so sometimes the benevolent principles of faith can get distorted as positions are hardened.

Gah, what crap. Revelation is irrational and unreasonable. You can't do science, collect data, and then decide, "Well, God has revealed to me that the correct answer is 2 grams heavier". ... That's precisely what Collins wants to do, and he admits it: he wants to add in anti-scientific beliefs and pretend he is still talking about science.