Francis Collins: The Language of God: A Believer Looks at the Human Genome
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 січ 2025
- NIH director and eminent physician-geneticist Francis Collins offers a mind-blowing and entertaining look at two categories that, as he puts it, "don't always get along well:" science and faith. Or do they? Starting with the facts of genetics, Collins manages to weave in stories from his own faith journey, replay a conversation with Stephen Colbert, discuss Richard Dawkins's perspective, and conclude with a proposal, in this 2008 Socrates in the City lecture hosted by Eric Metaxas in New York City.
*I always love the speakers, but my favorite part of SitC is always Eric's introductions!*
Yes!!! Sometimes, i play the intros over and over, just for the great laughs!!! Eric is so funny and outrageous! Hope to listen enough, until i catch his humor, and become a clone, lol!!!
This is so true. Far funnier than most stand up comedians!
So much new evidence has come forward to make this speech obsolete, I still respect Dr. Collins and he has probably changed his mind since.
like what?
@@SomethinAintRightHere Like 12 years of genome research.
@@SomethinAintRightHere try reading 'Replacing Darwin' by Nathaniel T. Jeanson. think if Collins were to read Jeanson's work he may want to re-write 'The Language of God'
@@sudan2 I did not know of this work. It looks interesting and I will take a look.
@@Living_Proof777 Genome research doesn't refute anything.
I've heard multiple talks where Collins dismisses irreducible complexity but can't find anyplace where he actually explains step by step how these systems can naturally develop.
It's not really important to deny irreducible complexity the term. He most likely still holds to a form of complexity :. Intelligent Design.
I also think God uses much more complexity than has been analyzed.
Let's give it a new name: Multifaceted Imperative Complexity.
All the Laws,
the Spirit realm,
Physical realm,
Quadratic physics of Science : time space, matter.
Even the major histocompatibility *complex* (MHC)
has the term complex in it. Obviously it's not an evolved radioactive macromolecular entity. God made it all. we didn't create anything simply because we learn about, and study experiments using the world we live in. But like was stated, there is a special language and code in everything. God uses codes in all His mechanics to speak to us within Science. Like Collins said to colbert, who was obnoxious talking about cloning God, it's the language of God in Mankind, DNA the most important creation of God, which is ManKind. Man produces after Man-kind his own kind.
It doesn't matter the name, but I would also like to know what he would rather it be. it may be that many people come from institutionalized establishments that all hold vastly different beliefs. And some will not be able to achieve funding if they hold to the same ideas or beliefs of another institution. What is needed is rather all these geniuses creating their own infrastructure of institutes coming together to create a new platform for separate academic advancement. Websites and internet channels aren't going garner as much external support unless unification of like minded believers actually do coagulate, no pun.
He's pathetic. The thought dismissing irreducible complexity is so obviously weak. Embarrassing.
There are plenty of discussion and papers on how the EYE developed, arguably among the most complex biological constructs in our world.
@@brianmi40 And to think it did that all by itself, over millions upon millions, and millions and millions of years, through trial and error and, and, with the aid of this weird non-existent thing called Natural Selection! ROTFL! And they want to be held in high esteem for their "education and "scientific" knowledge"? It doesn't even qualify to be called pseudo-science, because to be "pseudo" it has to have some sort of resemblance to what it is the fake of.
Richard Dawkins:
If you don't believe in evolution, why, I'll huff and I'll puff, and I'll blow your house down!
True Science:
You don't need a "belief in science" if something is "True Science". If you need a belief, that is called a "belief system", which is a "religion". It's so easy to see evolution is nothing but atheism, and not science at all....
B@@brianmi40 papers vapors
Fantastic introduction, beautiful talk.
The Annunaki recorded in the cuneiform why they fused our DNA and how many times they had to make adjustments because we were a hybrid . Its all recorded quite clearly...
Was the stylus for cuneiform the type of instrument used?
We need more content, Mr. Metaxas
So...no q and a because? This makes me go back to the Berlinski video that was so nicely done!
53:08 "That God had to step in and fix the process that had had so many flaws".
Are we expecting a perfect world to believe in God?
Should Jesus come in the form of some kind of Superhuman, the strongest ever, never gets old, and live in immortality on earth?
Because in that case, I'm sure every one of us would not have a problem believing when someone says He is the word of God became flesh.
I believe flaws are required to leave a room for doubt, doubt is required to have free will, otherwise, He might as well create a perfect world with robots who have no option but to believe in him.
Simply, we are falling to the world to suffer , there is nowhere in the Bible GOD said the world is perfect
Whenever you give a system sufficient freedom, it will generate its own flaws. I think it is a gross misunderstanding to attribute so-called mistakes in biology to God directly. When a tree starts growing crooked after a storm, I don't call it a mistake. To put in a stake to make grow right is not attempting to fix a mistake, only helping the tree fulfill its purpose.
@@matthew6335 Actually, God called His creation "very good" Gen 1:31. That was before man sinned.
Free will and faith, gratest show on earth. A superman J. Ch. wouldn't leave any place for that.
Very good is still not 'perfect'. It still have room for improvement. Perfect does not.
A good nudge apologetic presentation. Thank you. I recall my own walk of being an unbeliever in the Lord Jesus Christ and a strong evolutionist, to then being made to become a believer in him. I then found evolution foolish as I understood the precise definition of science, both the operational and the historical kinds, and found myself moving into theistic evolution.
But this was because while I did now believe in Jesus Christ, I did not believe truly that the Bible was God's preserved words. As my knowledge of the attributes of God, and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ increased, I came to understand the infallibility and inerrancy of the Holy Bible. That led me to read Gen 1-11 very very carefully, especially Gen 1-3. In doing so, over a period of time, I found that the notion of theist evolution collapsed.
I am so grateful that the Lord Jesus Christ has enabled me to understand that the universe (let alone the earth) is slightly less than 6000 years old, and has made me to be a creationist believer in him, while at the same time enlarging my understanding of cosmology/gravitation, and quantum mechanics.
I pray the same for Francis Collins and other scientist (and associated fields) believers in our Lord Jesus Christ who still are at the theistic evolution stage. Please, welcome to the creationist stage. Come this way. As you do, keep a focus of the words of Gen 1,2 and what THEY tell you; avoid the urge to insert your thoughts into what they mean. God does not lie. If he said the evening and the morning, the nth day, he meant that; 24 hours! Take it as it is. As your understanding grows of the words of God, you will understand HOW that is possible EVEN THOUGH the sun and moon were not created until the fourth day. I'd recommend the King James Version.
Vincent Pinto hey brother, I suggest you look up the talk by John Lennox about Seven Days That Divide the Earth, which he spoke at Socrates in the City. Bless you
I think that people who throw in all of these "steps" to creation do not understand how all-powerful is our God. The more I understand this, the more I see the vastness of His limitless abilities and the heighth and depth of His love.
Im glad you picked the correct religion out of the 4200 + religions out there. I have no idea which one is correct lol!
@@EvaLasta I recommend you not waste time with religions and trying to find out which one is correct. Look for, and go towards Jesus Christ alone. He will assist you with other things needful for you.
Thank you FRANCIS COLLINS! You're QUOTE is my FAVORITE to share with EVOLUTION DENIERS:
"As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before. It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that."
If we have to have an evangelical in charge of the NIH, Collins is about the best option I guess...
How unfortunate that they weren't able to zoom in on the screen. That was such a large part of this talk. Poor planning.
Information Theory (and The Entropy Law upon which it is derived) disallows for macroevolution. Information always comes from a mind (The Creator), as you apparently correctly deduced, but new information does not come about via random chance in our universe. In our universe, everything naturally degenerates from an ordered state to a more chaotic state. Thus, information from randomness does not happen, here; therefore, neither does macroevolution (which requires the spontaneous creation of new information).
Also, there is one creation story in The Bible. It is the same story told in different ways. The plants were created within days of the animals and humankind; neither can exist for long without the other.
I'm glad that mr. Collins stressed that he transitioned to believer from "non-believer" not from "convinced atheist". That explains 24:57
1) "Why I'm here" - reasons require mind that facillities them. These (human) minds evolved from outside, unconscious context, that evolved them as part of evolutionary heuristics, so that is your "reason" if you wish to accept that. You don't have to have "reason", invent something for yourself if you are not appeased by that. Is there a reason for every single pebble on earth? Has stone purpose before its used as a part of spear?
2) "What does love mean?" In what context? If this is query for definitive metaphysical answear - "meanings" are subjective. So go around, ask people and soon you will have statistical answear if that suits you, there is no objective one
3) caring about unknown people - evolution can't be picky. In "normal" wild circumstances through all your life you would meet about 200 people, all from same tribe, all closely related to you. Emotions enabled (not helped, made it possible) for humans to create societies (which are evolutionary advantage). Even animals of different species preacefuly interact and help each other on occasion
4) "What happens after I die" - What happens to river after its source dries? Is there a watercourse afterlife? Merely being able to contemplate your own future death is not excuse for it to not be real
5) "Is there a God" - Are there unicorns? No evidence, but we know where that question is coming from, so probably not. Is there a God? No evidence (and many christians agree, calling it "faith exclusive thing") and we know were that question is coming from, so...
"So if you are gonna be an atheist you have to basically decide >>those are irrelevant
Well said, especially the 200 people max you would meet in your lifetime throughout so much of homo sapiens history...
Berlinski is sooooo much better at making a beautiful point!
I find it ironic that he criticizes intelligent design for bad theology, when he make such a fundamental mistake as to claim that God gave us the knowledge from the fruit of the forbidden tree (knowledge of good and evil)
52:50 No. They are not. That is absolutely wrong. There are not "intermediary steps" to irreducibly complex systems like the flagella.
Furthermore, if evolution transformed the first single-cell design to the myriad species we see today, we would see evidence of that in the fossil record. We do not. Simply put, I disagree with macro evolution because of the fossil record and the existence of amazingly complex systems that could not have evolved in a piece-meal fashion. This has nothing to do with theology.
It breaks my heart to hear a "Scientist" believe in the religion of evolution. Talk about following by blind faith a concept that has no evidence of existence but also so many observable evidences that it (evolution) is untrue.
Do KNOW that he's SEEN the INCONTOVERTIBLE EVIDENCE for COMMON ANCESTRY IN DNA. What should it tell you if a BRILLIANT GENETICIST, and DEVOUT EVANGELICAL sees there is NO DENYING that evolution led to the diversity of life on this planet?
Do YOU have a degree in genetics to even QUESTION what HIS FINDINGS WERE that led him to say:
"As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before. It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that."
@@brianmi40 We do not know the process of creation. Even if we are Christians and believe God is responsible for all creation it does not mean that we know the whole process as the scriptures does not go into too much detail. As for the common ancestor that Collins sees - we are a long way in time from the beginnings of creation so the "evidence " we see we may interpret differently than what actually happened (after all we are not there).
I will say that the Bible says creation was designed according to their own kind - biblehub.com/genesis/1-24.htm
so this would conflict with what Collins said he discovered that the evidence shows evolution from a common ancestor. Collins may be right that the evidence suggests classical evolution from a common ancestor.
But I also would like to suggest another idea which I actually have not heard from others but thought about it in my own contemplations (but I would assume others have talked about it. I simply have not heard it myself) My response to Collins would be that the similarities Collins found does not mean that the earth necessarily evolved (in the way of the classical evolutionist argument: randomly through environmnetal pressures and influences). If there are such similairities, could it not be that the creator used a template where there are the basics for life but then used in a creative way for each creature type: i.e. humankind invented the concept of a wheel but made many different types of wheels, an artist who paints uses the same concept (pigments in an emulsion placed on a support of some sort) but these basic concepts are used to create very different types of art. Now, in saying this, this does not mean that creatures can not change through breeding, environmetal influences, mutations, etc. (we know this is true) but this does not rule out that at one time there was a beginning creation.
Anyway, just some thoughts.
@@JB-pd3ir "As for the common ancestor that Collins sees - we are a long way in time from the beginnings of creation so the "evidence " we see we may interpret differently than what actually happened (after all we are not there)."
Here's the thing. You know SO LITTLE about Evolution, that it's hard to even know where to start.
Evolution and Common Ancestry is not AT ALL based on a "couple fossils and a couple things we see sorta make it look life evolved from other life".
We're talking about MILLIONS of pieces of evidence, ALL FITTING TOGETHER to provide an UNQUESTIONABLE PICTURE.
At this point, we know MORE about how Evolution works, than how GRAVITY works.
And so, to attempt to convey the ENTIRE SCOPE of evidence to you in a few paragraphs is an impossibility.
You could STUDY and REVIEW all the evidence was have for JUST *one* *animal* --A HORSE-- evolving from a "dog-like" animal 55 to 58 MILLION YEARS AGO, and you could view the hundreds of fossils we have and review all the data,
-- AND IT WOULD ALONE TAKE YOU MONTHS TO DO.
"... we see we may interpret differently than what actually happened (after all we are not there)."
There IS NOT ALTERNATIVE INTERPRETATION that fits all the evidence that presents itself.
First of all, you have to know SOME BASICS to have any hope to even BEGIN to understand.
And the problem for you, and other evangelicals, is that you've "BEGUN WITH A CONCLUSION IN MIND" that "GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE AND ALL LIVING THINGS". And that creates a BIAS that prevents you from HONESTLY reviewing the data, but I will try.
First off, we KNOW that life evolved over time, because as we examine layers of SEDIMENT around the world it becomes obvious that the DEEPER THE LAYER the LONGER AGO IT FORMED. Yes, there are anomalies due to upheaval. But the majority of the land surface is clearly this way: OLDER is DEEPER. And over time, we've gotten VERY GOOD at knowing HOW OLDER these layers are, just like counting the RINGS ON A TREE where we know WITHOUT QUESTION that there was ONE RING formed every year it lived.
This tells us that when we find FOSSILS in those LAYERS, those fossils date from a SPECIFIC TIME PERIOD in history dating back MILLIONS OF YEARS.
So the first evidence Paleontologists saw, was fossils of various life gradually appearing as you MOVE UP THE LAYERS.
And so, we can build a TIMELINE OF WHEN VARIOUS SPECIES APPEARED ON THIS EARTH:
www.newscientist.com/article/dn17453-timeline-the-evolution-of-life/
For this, we have at least 4 TYPES OF EVIDENCE that confirms these approximate dates, AND the ORDER that they evolved:
1. Radiometric dating. Scientists discovered that radioactive isotopes DECAY (lose their radioactivity) at a STEADY RATE. This means we can MEASURE this and COMPARE this radioactivityto other measurements and come up with more often than not, a consistent range of dates. At LEAST TWO METHODS are used in dating a sample to reduce errors, but there is always the chance of them. HOWEVER, at something like a 90%+ reliability rate, these dates confirm the other methods.
2. Common DNA Sequences. This is where scientists have found SPECIFIC, LONG STRINGS OF DNA that are shared ONLY among species that are CLOSELY RELATED EVOLUTIONARY-WISE. That is, ONLY in species that evolved ONE FROM THE OTHER.
3. Molecular "clocks". Scientists have discovered that DNA MUTATES at a relatively STEADY RATE over long periods. This means that as we GO BACKWARDS through species that evolved one from the other, we see FEWER OF THESE DNA DEFECTS, showing us that they were ADDED TO SPECIES OVER TIME.
4. We see FEATURES CHANGING OVER TIME in the fossil record of ALL ANIMALS. These can be BOTH in the bone structure, but when we find the rare preserved bodies, also in INTERNAL ORGANS and soft tissue.
So, to ILLUSTRATE how this ALL FITS TOGETHER TO CONFIRM EACH OTHER, we could, for example, look at the EVOLUTION OF THE *HORSE* .
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Horseevolution.svg
And so, when we find fossils for each of the species that PRECEDES our MODERN HORSE, they have these 4 TYPES OF EVIDENCE:
1. Radiometric dating of HUNDREDS of fossils found CONFIRM the dates and timeline of each species leading to the horse.
2. Common DNA sequences, and molecular clocks CONFIRM their relatedness to species the FIRST species that "headed down the evolutionary path to become a horse" - Eohippus, and the other "odd toed hoofed mammals"
3. The fossil record of this "horse lineage" clearly shows the CHANGES IN THE FOSSILS OVER TIME as the species evolved to eventually become the horse.
4. Fossils found for each species leading to the horse are NEVER found buried in layers of sediment OLDER than all the other confirming evidence of the TIMELINE (as the image showed: Hyracotherium found in sediment from 50 million years ago, leading through Mesohippus 35 million years ago, to Merychippus, 15 million years ago...
And so, we KNOW that they horse evolved from a sort of "dog-like" animal that lived 55 to 58 MILLION YEARS AGO.
AND SO:
"could it not be that the creator used a template where there are the basics for life but then used in a creative way for each creature type:"
We KNOW for a fact that all these MILLIONS OF SPECIES across all of the ANIMAL, PLANT and BACTERIAL Kingdoms APPEARED GRADUALLY OVER MILLIONS OF YEARS OF SEPARATION.
That COMPLETELY DISPROVES a ONE TIME CREATION OF LIFE, as illustrated in the very first timeline I showed you:
www.newscientist.com/article/dn17453-timeline-the-evolution-of-life/
SPECIES GRADUALLY APPEARED OVER MILLIONS and BILLIONS OF YEARS SEPARATING THEIR APPEARANCE, there is simply NO DOUBTING THIS from all the CONFIRMING EVIDENCE.
And so, to a layman like yourself, who has never STUDIED in even ONE of the MANY FIELDS that provide this CONFIRMING EVIDENCE the best ANALOGY I can give is you sitting in something as COMPLEX as the SPACE SHUTTLE, and you are looking at 1 BLINKING LIGHT, which you DO NOT UNDERSTAND, down over in some dark corner, and concluding, BECAUSE YOU ALREADY HAVE DECIDED (badly) that GOD EXISTS and HIS BOOK SAYS HE "DID IT ALL" that that ONE BLINKING LIGHT (your "questions" about Evolution) PROVES that the SHUTTLE WILL NEVER FLY.
So understand, that when you see someone questioning some aspect of Evolution THAT THEY DO NOT UNDERSTAND because they NEVER EVEN GOT AN EDUCATION IN HOW IT ACTUALLY WORKS (which becomes OBVIOUS when they MISUSE WORDS for example), they are "POKING" at literally 1 PIECE OF THE OVERALL EVIDENCE that confirms the Theory of Evolution and Common Ancestry OUT OF LITERALLY *MILLIONS* OF PIECES OF EVIDENCE THAT ALL FIT TOGETHER TO FORM THE PICTURE that EVEN GOES FAR BEYOND what someone like Francis Collins understands.
And yet, what he saw ALONE in his EXPERT TRAINED FIELD of GENETICS was ALONE enough to confirm Common Ancestry.
@@brianmi40 I read all your post although I did not actually study it ( I may go back and do that later). As for your statement about my own assumed belief, I was actually contemplating the belief of Collins who states he is an evangelical but also a believer in Evolution.
I already have a limited knowledge of several the things you mentioned. I admit at an extremely shallow level and certainly not in any depth as this has not been an intense interest of mine. For me personally, I decided as there was no recorded history so we cannot come up with 100% conclusion I do not to dwell too much on the orgins of the world and universe. This is not because it is of no interest In truth (for me personally) the mystery of how this could all come to be is a wonder beyond me unfathomable (that would be the same rather I chose to believe in a God or not) . At the same time. there may be as Collins states an original ancestor but how did that ancestor come to be?
I have come to the conclusion there is only so much to be known but there are so many things that can be studied that we can determine. For example, Collins through his work was able to bring a fundamental understanding of how genomics works: to me these types of study seem more important and practical than to try and grasp what happened eons ago. But that is just my personal preference - for others (perhaps yourself) the analysis of evolutionary theory and processes appear to be very important and a life endeavor. I do not discourage or knock anyone in such endeavors. Everyone is different I just explained that this was not something I enjoy to devote a lot of time to. While of interest, there is only so much time one has on this earth so we all must chose how we will spend that time. As you clearly stated, there is an unending amount of material that could be studied in relation to our discussion.
But returning to my original post, I will clarify that I did not say there was not evolution / change, etc.I simply stated that I thought of another alternative if there was an ultimate creator (as Collins says there was) could it not be possible that part of the reason everything is so interelated is because that is how everything was originally created with a base temllate, smilar building block for life? That does not mean that once that happened there was no evolutionary change and everything remains static. I clearly stated that we can even see in present day how the environment, etc. effects changes (yes, genomically, etc.) in organisms.
Of course there are many that do not even believe in an ultimate creator (that Collins was discussing) and I would agree that this cannot be really materially proven in the way that traditional scientifc technique is used and that is another discussion to contemplate. Again, I was simply contemplating the ideas and word of Francis Collins (who does argue there is a God, a creator but there is an original ancestor and an evolutionary mechanism to the formation of all lifeforms on this earth).
Anyway, thank you for your discussion and the information you provided.
@@JB-pd3ir Thanks.
"I simply stated that I thought of another alternative if there was an ultimate creator (as Collins says there was) could it not be possible that part of the reason everything is so interelated is because that is how everything was originally created
( with a base templlate, smilar building block for life) That does not mean that once that happened there was no change. I clearly stated that we can even see in present day how the environment, etc. effects changes in organisms (yes, genomically, etc.) "
AGREED fully: I cannot prove that GOD DID NOT SEED THE LIFE that evolved to become all that we so now from Common Ancestry.
The DEFAULT POSITION IS: we DO NOT KNOW YET.
Claiming life DID ARISE NATURALLY, or, GOD CREATED LIFE will BOTH REQUIRE PROOF.
Until we KNOW, if ever, the question becomes WHICH IS MORE LIKELY?
We are actually QUITE CLOSE on the natural hypothesis in some ways: We have WITNESSED an INORGANIC CHEMICAL PROCESS that can SPONTANEOUSLY CREATE A COMPLEX MOLECULE CHAIN, which THEN, can start to SELF REPLICATE (copy itself).
This is HUGE and demonstrates that a critical step, CHEMICALS to SELF RECREATING COMPLEX MOLECULES is COMPLETELY KNOWN TO BE POSSIBLE.
Now again, you're welcome to argue that's HOW GOD DID IT. But again, that will place the burden of proof ON YOU.
Consider this:
IN ALL OF RECORDED HISTORY, every single finding of Science has had a NATURAL BASIS FOR HOW IT HAPPENS. Never once a supernatural, or paranormal one.
Furthermore, there has never been incontrovertible evidence for any GOD.
Even the HYPOTHESIS that there IS A GOD, would add LAYERS AND LAYERS OF UNKOWNS:
How did HE come to be?
Where is HE / has he BEEN?
How does he have the power to CREATE A Universe?
And so, we have OCCAM'S RAZOR, which tells us DO NOT ADD COMPLEXITY NEEDLESSLY. The simplest answer is not always the correct one: but it IS the best place to start looking.
"and things can be interpreted in other ways. "
There are 8.8 MILLION SCIENTISTS in the world. They have provided us with every medicine, treatment, cure, vaccine, and piece of technology, from a TESLA to a LUNAR ORBITER.
97% of those scientists have stated in polls that THEY HAVE SEEN CONVINCING EVIDENCE FOR THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION and COMMON ANCESTRY.
Given that and estimated 4% of the population are SOCIOPATHS, having 3% be evangelical deniers is well within expected bounds.
In fact, what should it tell you that 51% of scientists CLAIM TO BE RELIGIOUS, yet we STILL see 97% of scientists ACCEPT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION?
The EVIDENCE is way TOO DEEP, way TOO VARIED, Across WAY TOO MANY FIELDS OF SCIENCE, and SPANNING 150 YEARS since Darwin wrote his book.
AT this point, there isn't even a serious alternative hypothesis to put forward...
As for a GOD CLAIM, should it happen to be the GOD OF THE BIBLE, I can show you clear RATIONAL evidence that THAT god does NOT EXIST.
Why are worrying about Science and faith - Scientists are just uncovering what’s already there.
I don't understand why this scientist still embraces evolution when it is clear that God created ALL things -- NOT some primary things and then evolution took over. He can believe the Bible literally and still be a scientist!
Do KNOW that he's SEEN the INCONTOVERTIBLE EVIDENCE for COMMON ANCESTRY IN DNA, which has been CONFIRMED by hundreds of other GENETICISTS? What should it tell you if a BRILLIANT GENETICIST, and DEVOUT EVANGELICAL sees there is NO DENYING that evolution led to the diversity of life on this planet?
Do YOU have a degree in genetics to even QUESTION what HIS FINDINGS WERE that led him to say:
"As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before. It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that."
Eric reminds me of that great comedian Jerry Lewis.
Eric Metaxas.
Lewis was not funny........but he did try really really really really really really really hard to look funny to people with a small sense of humour
*_Digging into the ole archives!_* 🕯🎄🎀
Gonna be a good video!
His claim to be a Christian is laughable at best. Kind of like, putting lipstick on a pig, and giving it a purse and calling it a woman (although that seems to happen a lot these days, especially in "women's" sports, lol). He's just a full-blown evolutionist, no matter which skirt he is parading in public.
Collins tried to say there was a contradiction in Genesis. I reread Chapter 1 and it is easily resolved as the first vegetation He created is not fruit bearing, the second type after the creation of man is. God could have created man thru evolution but didn't He state that in the book He gave us. Still baffles me that scientists believe Evolution, especially a theist..
Right, but it's always an uphill tussle. Eph 6:12'Because we are not wrestling against flesh and blood, but against principalities and against powers, against the world rulers of the darkness of this age, against the spiritual power of wickedness in high places'
Forget Genesis. How do you reconcile the Garden of Eden with his findings that PROVE BEYOND A SHADOW OF DOUBT that Evolution unquestionably led to the diversity of life on this planet???
Better to focus on nutrition to avoid disease the tinkering with DNA
Astragalus TA-65
Exactly WHAT DIET will prevent the MACULAR DEGENERATION BUILT INTO CHROMOSOME 1???
Hmm, a theistic evolutionist. As the interviewer said in the video he showed, "you throw part of it out, you throw it all out". A pity he's putting his faith in atheists as much as in God.
Do KNOW that he's SEEN the INCONTOVERTIBLE EVIDENCE for COMMON ANCESTRY IN DNA.
What PART of that doesn't DISPROVE THE GARDEN OF EDEN STORY???
The clip he showed of the interview was not very complementary. There was a clear contradiction. There is so much evidence macro-evolution impossible but this is what happens when individuals speak outside of their wheelhouse. It is embarrassing to see intelligent Believers attempt to blame God for a very weak theory. His presentation was filled with Just So Stories and vague language and was very reminiscent of Darwin. Can we please stop attempting to walk a tightrope by blaming a bad Theory on a brilliantly perfect Holy God? Can we please stop being afraid of others viewing us as anti-intellectual if we believe in a literal biblical account since the evidence if you go to the experts in their field on those specifics bears it out?
All I can see is the back of people's heads!!
Ya Collins knows the language of gif alright
I like Francis Collins, but evolution doesn't answer the origin of life itself let alone the fact information precedes the material realm. His backhanded argument against the proponents of intelligent design, from my perspective, are what's counterproductive because as scientists and Christian's we should reason together. Collins is a geneticist, not a molecular chemist or molecular biologist, therefore he's out of his wheelhouse when it comes to the bacterial flagellum and other molecular machines within the cell. These disagreements come from men and women of a particular field going outside their field and acting like authorities over a field that isn't their own. I'm not saying that evolution is not real but I think it's premature to assume evolution accounts for X, Y, and Z when there's zero evidence that evolution drives chemistry, matter, etc--- evolution only occurs once you have life and even then evolution has its limitations, and in fact is actually the breakdown of existing code rather than the creation of new functional code. I also take issue with Collins on a biblical standpoint because the Biologos organization he runs and operates argues that Adam and Eve were mere allegories, when Jesus Christ Almighty God referred to Adam as a literal person. That kind of Christianity is what I find counterproductive because it renders everything as something relative rather than absolute. If you believe in Jesus Christ Almighty God as your Lord and Savior and Redeemer and Healer and Deliverer and God then you need to literally believe in Adam and Eve too, because after all the gospel of Luke it shows Jesus Christ Almighty God's genealogy going back to Adam. Still, I like that Socrates in the City is somewhat back and uploading new content. Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you all 😊
Second to that.
Indeed Correct.
Information precedes all material existence as honest scientific observation is showing and people that like to speculate on things from an Intelligent Design standpoint regarding the origin of life still don't want to admit it is a God that created all things.
For eg The Cell in all its complexity is the start of the evolutionary process billions of years ago.
Still, don't want to entertain a young earth theory which the Bible says is Truth (1 day is 1000 years codified in scripture)
Adam and Eve and the story of the Garden being more logical than the idea it was a planetary act of panspermia and that alien life forms elsewhere seeded life to explain the ID element they support, which I also believe is a reality when science is observed.
Aliens don't explain the Big Bang and it just doesn't make sense when you take into account what has been learned regarding Quantum Physics.
If the Universe is expanding since this event (CREATION) then wouldn't it also make sense that the space contained within this universal expanse effect time and how we measure it.
Time is a product of Matter and Space therefore is it logical to preclude we can't accurately measure it as time is always at lengthened intervals?
Does that make sense?
Praise JESUS KING of The Universe!
@@chrisevans4070 Very well said Chris!
This comment was so profound!
The guy is a high mason. He may claim to believe in God, but i wonder if it's the God of Israel.
Very cool, just don't tell health insurance vultures.
Collins converted from atheism to Christianity through a leap of faith after coming upon a spectacular frozen waterfall in the Cascade Mountains.
He demonstrated that a person can practice the scientific method of gathering evidence, creating a hypothesis and then testing that hypothesis
and still believe an ancient story about a barbaric Hebrew god with three personalities hiding in the clouds.
yes, which is about as illogical as spending 10 minutes in a huge Argument From Incredulity here in his talk... It's as if his logic circuits TURN OFF when he shifts to thinking about religion...
Tha blond with the white blouse has the perfect gnome, at least close enough for me.
Gnome? Really? They covered this in the speech.
Who is that Eric Metaxas? Making those dumb comments! He thought he is smart!
Eric is THE reason why I watch SITC
How is a 1/4" of clearance built into the design of the train, and the tracks "miraculous"? Is the 7' of clearance above my car to most every bridge I drive under "miraculous"?
For a (presumably) brilliant geneticist, Collins has ZERO common sense... but of course, he's an evangelical...
Few people in their whole life miss the point as embarrassingly as you just have with that comment - who's on about 'miracles' ? Your comment is one of the clearest cases of the lack of emotional intelligence seen in many atheists I've ever read - it reads like a parody- maybe it is. From a story indicating the presence of a spiritual quality above the world of atoms and molecules and you come up with something about measurements and miracles
@@andypandy4078 What are you PRATTLING ON ABOUT? 31:37 Collins SPECIFICALLY CALLS IT "miraculously". It's NOT my wording it's HIS M0R0N.
This ENTIRE speech is simply an ARGUMENT FROM INCREDULITY, whereby, GEE, because Collins CLAIMS that we have something instead of nothing and there is "NO REASON THAT SHOULD BE THERE" is simply an IDIOTIC CLAIM UNSUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER.
Yes, the fact that our mathematics breaks down before Planck Time, DOES cry out for an EXPLANATION. What is DOES NOT CRY OUT FOR IS PLUGGING IN AN ANSWER AS IF YOU KNOW. That's NOT HOW RATIONAL THOUGHT WORKS AT ALL.
That would be as DUMB as Collins, a world class geneticist, PRIOR to parsing the human genome, just PLUGGING IN AN ANSWER "well it CRIES OUT FOR AN EXPLANATION, so I'll just claim that Humans evolved from life seeded HERE from MARS by a comet."
UNSUPPORTED. And. DUMB. Just like doing so AT ALL about the early universe without ANY BASIS OF EVIDENCE.
Just LIKE Collins path to Faith: seeing a WATERFALL IN WINTER FROZEN AND SECTIONED INTO 3 PARTS and EQUATING THAT TO THE HOLY TRINITY. Talk about your DELUSIONAL IMAGE INTERPRETATION.
Collins also never PUTS 2 and 2 TOGETHER, to realize that HIS CORRECT GENETIC ASSERTION that Common Ancestry is UNDENIABLE through what he saw in the genome makes THE GARDAN OF EDEN, and MAN created from DUST and woman from a SPARE RIB, a TOTAL FICTIONAL MYTH.
And GUESS WHAT: If NO GARDEN of Eden, then NO TALKING SNAKE, and NO talking snake, then NO KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL. And NO knowledge of good and evil, then NO ORIGINAL SIN. And NO original sin, and no need for GOD TO TAKE HUMAN FORM AND ACT OUT A DRAMA PORTRAYING HIMSELF AS A HUMAN FORM IN ORDER TO ACT OUT AND INVOKE A LOOPHOLE TO RULES HE HIMSELF HAD MADE.
Yeah, that's RIGHT: Collins HIMSELF has DEBUNKED CREATION MYTHOLOGY by his PROOF of Common Ancestry which is today settled science.
None of you clowns are even smart enough to figure out that your All Knowing God actually DIDN'T KNOW IT ALL and BLEW IT WITH CREATION and "RESET" it all with a GREAT FLOOD. Never even wondered how your All Knowing god BLEW IT, did you?
None of you clowns are smart enough to know that IF he had all knowledge, including of future events then there is ZERO FREE WILL, because YOU CANNOT TRICK A GOD WHO KNOWS THE FUTURE, INCLUDING EVERY BEAT OF YOUR HEART by DOING ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT HE KNOWS YOU WILL DO.
And NONE of you clowns have actually READ YOUR BIBLE COVER TO COVER to see your "god" ADVOCATING FOR OWNING HUMAN BEINGS AS PROPERTY, which you can BEAT, even to DEATH, and PASS DOWN TO YOUR CHILDREN.
What WE today call SLAVERY.
Quite some IMMORAL THUG of a god you're worshipping. So now WHO'S MISSING "SOMETHING"???
Ugh who was that guy interviewing him? He's exactly the kind of "Christian" that people, in general, can't stand
Eric Metaxes or however you spell his name
Stephen Colbert, I believe he was raised catholic and claims to be a Christian.
Not to make excuses for him, but i believe most of the stuff he says isnt meant to be taken seriously. He uses a lot of sarcasm and tongue in cheek humor.
Colbertt is in fact, an evil little gnome
That was Stephen Colbert, in character as ultra-right wing "Colbert", from his show The Colbert Report. He now does the Late show as himself, no character. And he's Catholic.
He's clearly a parody - I can't believe you thought he was for real. And I've never met a 'Christian' like him and neither have you. He corresponds more to the insecure dogmatic neurotic atheist of the youtube comments obsessive type.