Debating Evolution, Genetics and God

[@GuentherShadow]

Francis Collins' argument regarding the universe having a beginning and requiring a cause has two significant issues: The universe’s beginning isn’t proven: While the Big Bang marks the start of the observable universe in its current form, it doesn’t prove that the universe itself had an absolute beginning. Alternative theories, like cyclical models or quantum gravity, suggest that the universe could have existed in another state before the Big Bang. To claim the universe definitively has a beginning is speculative and requires further evidence. Special pleading for God: Collins claims that everything with a beginning requires a cause, but he exempts God from this rule by asserting that God is the uncaused cause. This exemption is unsubstantiated and arbitrary. If the universe could be eternal and uncaused, why should God uniquely hold that status? This seems more like an attempt to dismiss counterarguments preemptively rather than demonstrating why God is the necessary exception. Collins appears to use a “shifting burden of proof” tactic here. He applies stricter scrutiny to the universe than to God, even though both concepts require equal justification. If we allow for the possibility of an uncaused God, we must also allow for the possibility of an uncaused universe. Without addressing this inconsistency, his argument remains speculative and incomplete. Thank you to Unbelievable? for hosting such thoughtful discussions-this platform does a fantastic job of fostering dialogue on big questions like these. I greatly respect Francis Collins for his contributions to both science and faith. Thank you so much for having him and Phil on the show. ♥

[@WheresWaldo05]

Lol!!!!!! The universe doesnt have an absolute beginning, but the big bang is a start point for one aspect of it. Ahhhh the irony.

[@heremtica]

Further, there is nothing about the universe having a beginning / not having a beginning per se that has any ultimate argumentative value for the existence of God. Many ancient philosophers believed in "God" yet simultaneously believed the universe was eternal. Even Christian theologians believed this - Origen and Clement of Alexandria being prominent and influential examples. In fact, from the Neoplatonic perspective, creation ex nihilo is a completely nonsensical position. It requires us to posit a change in God, which is entirely illogical. The notion of creation ex nihilo is tied to certain rigorist interpretations of the Hebrew Scripture and really has nothing to do with speculative philosophy, theology, or science.

[@WheresWaldo05]

@heremtica Something cannot come from nothing. If the universe is eternal, then that means an eternal being called GOD can exist. So any athiest claiming they do not believe in eternal or supernatural skydaddys has no leg to stand on. If they are claiming the universe itself is eternal. It is a self defeating argument.

[@heremtica]

@@WheresWaldo05 Exactly, whether or not the universe had a beginning has no bearing on the existence of God.

[@WheresWaldo05]

@heremtica For the universe to have had a beginning, since something cannot come from nothing, and since space, time and matter needs something spaceless, timeless and immaterial to create space, time and matter for which to create said universe, requires GOD.

[@MrNobodylj]

Good respectful discussion and Good moderating … both sides showed respect and honor and fruitful discussion

[@dohpam1ne]

Nice discussion, but not really a debate. There was a good 10-15 minutes of respectful debate at the start, then anything to do with the existence of God was pretty much tossed aside for topics like "is truth important" and "what's your advice for listening better during conversations". The moderator did a great job, but for whoever picked the discussion topics, I don't know why they were so disjointed and kind of unrelated to the title/thumbnail. They weren't really topics that any two scientifically literate people would disagree on, so most of the discussion was just the guests agreeing with each other. Phil even tried to redirect back to theism at one point but that just got derailed again.

[@configurational]

Very much looking forward to this! Can I humbly suggest an episode with two Christians on different sides of creation-evolution-ID? e.g. Francis Collins and Stephen Meyer?

[@nisarfazil6104]

Stephen meyer is id Not recognises Sm is a philospher

[@NotAnEvilPersian]

Terrible choice for the God side of debate!

[@gaspingfortruth]

One helluva witness huh?

[@dennyworthington6641]

Over the millennia H. sapiens have conjured thousands of gods. When Mr. Collin's tells me why he doesn't believe in most of them, he'll know why I don't believe in his. BTW, I would like to know Mr. Collins's view on Jesus's DNA.

[@richard8176]

Evolution can explain a common sense of morality.

[@WheresWaldo05]

Evolution is just a concept of random and chaotic chemical thoughts in our brains. Which is just the result of evolution doing what it does. So if the chemicals in my brain say 1+1=2 and someone elses says 1+1=4. We both are correct. As evolution cannot be wrong in either case. Both brains chemically are doing what is needed to survive. Sorry but you lost this one Bubba.

[@davethebrahman9870]

@@WheresWaldo05 That couldn’t be further from the truth. Our brains are information processing systems. If they were random and chaotic they would be useless.

[@seanpierce9386]

@@WheresWaldo05 In fact, you can say 1+1=4. It’s just a question of how useful it is. If you start arriving at contradictions, it’s not very useful at all for prediction, and prediction is the key to survival. So organisms tend towards accuracy for practical reasons, and logic combined with the scientific method helps us make that process more rigorous. In matters of importance, we specifically avoid human intuition and turn to mathematical tests.

[@seanpierce9386]

@@WheresWaldo05 It’s worth noting that there are cases where it’s useful to set a=0, in modular arithmetic. What you’re after are the axioms to prove such statements. But regardless of your religion, you’re out of luck, due to Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem: No system with basic arithmetic rules can prove its own consistency. And I don’t think the Bible can provide support for such axioms.

[@niklaswikstrom78]

@@WheresWaldo05Do all creationists misunderstand evolution? Or are you just being disingenuous

[@christopherdale1745]

I'm not sure lending credibility to Dr. Collins is a legitimate endeavor.

[@larrythomsen1072]

I agree. His collusion with liars like Dr Fauci and his own lies call everything he says into question.

[@MrCBTman]

Explain, please.

[@christopherdale1745]

@MrCBTman he lied about all things COVID-related, and he justifies abortion.

[@MrCBTman]

@@christopherdale1745 He didn’t lie. I read the transcript, the way those questions were phrased was bs

[@norski4052]

I'm a bit disappointed with Francis' responses. Phil put forward several specific claims; explanation of fine tuning, moral concerns with God, historicity of Exodus, etc. Francis didn't rise to any of the challenges directly. Francis' lived out ethical examples and life were great to hear, and I thought Phil's positions were quite weak but I was hoping Francis would have given a more robust answer to the questions raised.

[@kennethmichael1427]

Dr Francis seemed to completely dodge the statements that Phil made about the immorality of God in the old Testament (the biblical flood, genocide of the Amelikites, the story of Achan) he did not have any kind of direct reply to those statements. Other than that both men were real gentleman.

[@SOX-9]

Do you believe the universe is moral? If so, how do we get that morality?

[@SOX-9]

Alternatively, can you give me evidence that proves moral laws? As far as I understand it, atheist believe the world is amoral.

[@fatfrankie]

I really like Ruth’s enthusiasm, friendliness and intelligence

[@stephenbailey9969]

Even many believers today have been affected by the modern mindset arising out of Enlightenment deism, that this created realm in some way has a separate existence from God. The far older paradigm, however, expounds a universe that is contained by God and sustained by God moment to moment. Only God being eternal and the universe a contingent reality generated by God's mind and power and will. All contingent things continue to exist by his will, either the direct will or the permissive will. But there is no distance between the mind of God and physical reality. Divine thought and will give birth to us and what we perceive as material existence. As St. Paul said, to explore that created existence is to explore the revelation of the mind of God.

[@zachg8822]

Want to see a super genius say moronic shit? Youve come to the right place!

[@davethebrahman9870]

This discussion ought to make Christians question their reliance upon Collins as their chief example of a believing scientist. He is no doubt a fine scientist, but his main reason for belief is the Moral Argument, not any arcane scientific knowledge; and the basis of the said argument is merely the ‘intuition’ (i.e feeling) that moral facts exist. There is no good reason to think this is true, and the multiplicity of human moral beliefs, coupled with the power of evolutionary explanation in respect of moral feelings, gives us good reason to reject the Moral Argument. Even if one does think that there are moral facts, the positing of a God is not the only available explanation. So the belief of Collins is not informed by science, and is in fact anti-scientific in its conclusions.

[@rogersacco4624]

Ultimately what ever you decide it doesn't mean God will make you live forever.See some David Eagleman videos about the brain and trillions of connections in constant flux and existing with s time ,place,and history which is why you exist.None of that can be duplicated and no one has any idea what they want to do with an infinite afterlife

[@jonatasmachado7217]

In my opinion, the literal reading of Genesis still stands. The available evidence corroborates it. Natural selection was never observed to generate new and more complex biological structures and functions. Mutations are cumulative and degenerative, destroying genetic information. In the end, finches "evolve" into finches and iguanas into iguanas, as Darwin observed, Dawkins observes, Collins observes, we all observe and Genesis 1 clearly states (10 times). Fish to fishermen or frog to prince evolution has to be imagined. Imagination is not science.

[@derkurtneu]

There is a big difference between the science of Evolution and the polemics of Evolution. I have huge problems with Evolution as a polemical argument against theism. I have zero problem with the science of Evolution, or using the empirical method to discover how living things interact with their environment and adapt to it to survive. And, yes, I also have huge problems with polemical arguments theists use against atheist proponents of Evolution and Darwinianism. Polemics is the problem. Rational conversation and contention are mutually exclusive. All heat and no light leaves all parties burned and in the dark.

[@davethebrahman9870]

@@derkurtneu I couldn’t disagree more. As our courts have found over a millenium, truth is best discovered by an adversarial process. The whole reason illogical beliefs persist is that they are never exposed to cross-examination. This is no doubt comforting for those who want to shield their beliefs from scrutiny, but many of us prefer to get to the facts.

[@seanpierce9386]

Yes and no. Yes, we should be seeking truth in our discussion. Yes, atheists can be quick to cite evolutionary theory as a gotcha without a second thought. But if there’s a conflict between your theological belief and science, you should probably work that out. Remember, a proof by contradiction is a valid syllogism and can’t simply be dismissed. The evolutionary theory is quite formidable if it’s used to support the Problem of Evil, challenge Biblical inspiration, or probe the origins of consciousness and morality.

[@markwrede8878]

Is tautology the source of meaning?

[@jonatasmachado7217]

No, natural selection has never been observed to give rise to new and more complex structures and functions. Yes, mutations are cumulative and degenerative. In the end, finches are still finches, as Darwin observed, Dawkins observes, we all observe and Genesis 1 clearly states. Fish to fishermen evolution has to be imagined.

[@PATRICKJLM]

Evolution by natural selection on Earth gave dinosaurs - and if it wasn't for a cosmic coincidence, they would have been still the rulers of Earth. I guess God's project Humans 1.0 didn't go as expected and he had to reset it with a comet...

[@Dannydreadlord]

Is it me or do the theist scientists sound so much like apologists.

[@OpenMind4U2C]

I love it, let's make some excuses for why God doesn't intervene

[@SOX-9]

How do you know when God should intervene?

[@OpenMind4U2C]

Well done Phill 👏 he failed to address your great points

[@joseleon8235]

I do not get any reason for a God to be selective to drive evolution by hand rather than by a perfect categorical teleology that includes all ontology at once, including evolution, but by any means centered on it. Assuming God exists. Otherwise, it would be just brute force that, by ontological randomness and time, could become anything. I come to believe that the later never explains its own self-causation; instead, the first one, that "it is what it is," like in the Bible, "I am who I am," it is just beautiful; it summarizes the best, simple yet sublime definition of an entity that embodies all the meaning.

[@liammccann8763]

Lack of awareness of kenosis is staggering, even amongst those who claim to be scholars. The Holy Spirit not only conceived Christ, He also conceived Holy Writ - in doing so He clothed Himself in our human shortcomings, our flaws, our failings. This was an act of supreme humility and unmatched charity for the sake of our salvation. In hoc signo vinces +

[@robertmcclintock8701]

U^ェ^U This is an artistic proof of a created universe. When you paint a shadow it's the opposite color of the object that made the shadow. Nobody knew what the opposite color of white was so the artists avoided painting white on white. The opposite color of white is baby blue and baby pink. The first artist to figure it out was Norman Rockwell. I was the second artist to figure it out. I saw it in the corner of a white room. The lighting was perfect to see it. Pigments have different rules than light. It took them thousands of years to get all the pigments they have now.

[@richard8176]

What is the morality promoted by the bible, turn the other cheek or an eye for an eye?

[@davethebrahman9870]

@@richard8176 Both.

[@liteenergy4843]

I don't see how eternity and Jesus's becoming eternal is at odds with quantum physics. To myself, they intertwine and complement each other.

[@The-DO]

Great news with "Ask NT Wright" as well

[@rlittlefield2691]

The fact is that for more than 1500 years they thought evolution was a Christian idea. St Augustine when he translated Genesis with native Hebrew Speakers came to the conclusion that God used evolution to create complex life. ( Evolution Plato not Darwin of course.) It turns out that while the word Day is the best translation it gives us an incorrect notion that day means 24 hours. Even in our DAY, in English it does not always mean 24 hours. See I just used it in a way that it does not mean 24 hours. The problem is what we observe in the fossil record is called Punctuated Equilibrium, not evolution, as there are no transitional fossils to be found. Or it could be said, it appears there was a big flood that covered up all the evidence for evolution. You may not know that is the case, and I have had people correct me and say there was a series of smaller floods,. Maybe they are right.

[@liammccann8763]

Why in that case did God command us, in Exodus, to 'keep holy the sabbath DAY'?.

[@davethebrahman9870]

@@rlittlefield2691 Almost everything you say there is incorrect. ‘Evolution’ now means ‘evolution by natural selection’. Augustine, Plato, even Erasmus Darwin, they had no idea of the mechanism. The Hebrew word ‘יום’ always means ‘day’ when used in the absolute singular and without qualification. ‘Punctuated Equilibrium’ is a model rejected by most biologists and palaeontologists, and we know for certain there was never a universal Flood.

[@chilufyajosh2220]

I think people just need to believe because they found a particular faith appealing that's enough, otherwise to add a particular scientific back up to beliefs, sense goes out of the window..

[@OpenMind4U2C]

The simplest explanation doesn't explain what God actually is its just as speculative but even more so.

[@fatfrankie]

Doesn’t Francis Collin’s sound a bit like Ned Flanders from the Simpsons?😂

[@Paine137]

Never underestimate the ignorant superpower of compartmentalization.

[@thesteadystatesman]

No respect for Collins any longer...

[@MrCBTman]

Why?

[@mgosta2]

Not God, it was the invisible flying spaghetti monster.

[@Murphydennis2332]

But he is made of spaghetti.

[@tingtingtangtangtang]

The universe is computer simulated by the FSM

[@erehwhon]

Wow, what a sophisticated mind you have and how deep your thinking is. You are scary bright.

[@gerrybeves]

Science led me to faith - creation testifies that there is a designer. If by 'reject science' thry actually mean 'reject a theory that contradicts evidence' , then it it not about being more religious, but more analytical.

[@grayhalf1854]

How did science lead you to faith?

[@gerrybeves]

@grayhalf1854 I always believed in evolution, but when I tried to prove it, not only did I find no conclusive proof on offer, only speculation, I also found evidence against it. When I applied the laws of genetics reproduction to the process, I found that it contradicted the observed processes. I have some youtube videos explaining it. Look for Pilgrim Bible Society.

[@robertmcclintock8701]

⌒(ё)⌒ We need to popularize the idea of getting God married. Getting God married is a good use of someone's time. You are supposed to make the environment intelligent so no God is needed. We fixed the video and audio for the best experience possible. Cameras are supernatural and all of them captured 3D that not a gimmick. The audio loud don't make violence so has depth. Nobody has to buy anything for it to work.

[@robertmcclintock8701]

(-)_(-) It's intelligently designed that if you master evolution it just makes you a baby doctor.

[@somerandom3247]

It seems odd that a god would create a world where the diversity of life arrose via evolution, then inspire men to write a book that states something else different entirely happened.... Unless you are happy to accept contradictions, I don't see how one can believe the bible and evolution.

[@redeemedchannel5580]

As a firm believer in the Word of God, I completely agree with you. The Bible and the evolutionary hypothesis are completely contradictory.,That’s why there is zero evidence for said hypothesis-because it’s not real. But if you believe it isn’t real, good luck keeping your job as an educator.

[@barry.anderberg]

Tell me you don't understand the Bible without telling me.

[@SOX-9]

I believe when the truth if fully known, we will see the hand of God. Before the current model of the making of the solar system, there were others and we now think they are wrong. The current evolutionary theory will undergo many more changes and give the resurrection of Jesus, I believe all truth will eventually align with Jesus. Also, the creation story is not a science story. The one thing I thought was obviously silly is the one thing I know to be true about it, light came before the sun. That obvious falsehood was not written out gives me confidence the story is preserved.

[@heremtica]

@@redeemedchannel5580 "a firm believer in the Word of God" I think what you mean is you're a firm believer in your traditional religious presuppositions that you read into the Bible thinking that is what it actually says. Just so you're aware, there is over a millennia of witnesses in the early and medieval church of figures who understood Genesis to be an allegorical and symbolic account. Virtually every rabbinic commentary treats it as such. Christianity exists outside of Bible belt American fundamentalism.

[@MrCBTman]

The Bible isn’t a single book. It’s a library of books, and not all are in the same genre.

[@OpenMind4U2C]

No we don't all agree we have Free Will certainly not the sort your proposing

[@diosrelish6924]

no problem with me if Dr. Collins believes in god but why he choosed the Christian god in particular !!! is it because he was raised in a Christian culture ? does he have a strong evidence that the Trinitarian god ! is the real god and not only a fabricated story developed decades after the death of jesus .

[@robertmcclintock8701]

(ФωФ) Natural selection is the character flaw in evil that is integrity is more important than life otherwise evolution is tragic circumstances with nothing intelligent happening. Almost everyone survive until they reproduce. Nothing is getting selected except for the character flaw in evil. I found a replacement for the character flaw in evil that I liked but God makes me forget things that will cause me trouble.

[@SOX-9]

Evolution applied to the universe😂

[@mohitoautomaciek801]

🍻🤝🍻👍🍻🤩🍻🥳🍻👍🍻🤝🍻

[@selwynr]

No.

[@GodDutyHonorCountry]

I believe GOD’s decision to kill all Egyptian firstborns, was a judgement against the Egyptians murdering the Hebrew slaves’ male infants ; when MISES was a baby, and was hidden away, and sent down the Nile in a basket to SAVE His life. ALSO, God would see that any youth to infant who died, would enter Heaven. He sees the COMPLETE picture, we do NOT.

[@grayhalf1854]

Lol

[@munbruk]

The Bible was regurgitated through human minds and will face challenges. Unlike the Quran which is is ok with evolution.

[@davethebrahman9870]

@@munbruk The Quran presupposes the Bible. Islam is a Christian heresy, just as Christianity is a Jewish heresy.

[@SOX-9]

I find atheist appeal to morality cringe.

[@robertmcclintock8701]

○o。. Consciousness is the particle and wave double slit experiment. The cones and rods of your eyes preserve the particle and wave duality so your vision don't look like a flat screen television. It's supposed to be a violation of physics but it is the only exception in the whole universe.

[@robertmcclintock8701]

☆ミ The universe was created in 1976. It is too hot to make a universe at the time of the big bang. It can be created at anytime. God is slow and easy. A human can do a lot with their lifespan. I got the hunk. God got the chunk. Everyone else can have the rest. That is song spirit of ''76 by The Alarm.

[@Dulc3B00kbyBrant0n]

😂 evolution is a joke

[@MrCBTman]

Evolution is a fact.

[@davethebrahman9870]

@@Dulc3B00kbyBrant0n The joke’s on you, my fellow ape!

[@grayhalf1854]

Gravity is also a joke...

[@Stoiction]

All religions are like spaghetti with different sauce recipes. Which one leads to an illusory paradise? The evolution of generations will continue without imaginary monsters.

[@stevenwiederholt7000]

WRONG!

[@Dulc3B00kbyBrant0n]

Like ancient times? They want their works based stuff back

[@Stoiction]

@@stevenwiederholt7000 RIGHT!

[@barry.anderberg]

I can already predict Phil's arguments. He will argue from animal suffering and perceived sub-optimal designs in biology.

[@PhilHalper1]

actually i dont recall making either of those arguments during the debate but it was recorded a while ago so I might be wrong. This one definitely has a different focus.

[@barry.anderberg]

​@@PhilHalper1isn't this upcoming?

[@PhilHalper1]

@@barry.anderberg yes it is

[@orange42]

Was God behind something that didn't happen? No.

[@redeemedchannel5580]

The problem with discussions such as this is that there is a built-in assumption that the macro evolutionary philosophy is even real. This has not remotely been established. Why don’t we debate that first? This is the same mistake that William Lane Craig continuously makes. So frustrating to watch.

[@blakerice7928]

Macro evolution has mountains upon mountains of evidence. Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution. Christianity as a whole and particularly Genesis is teaching theological truths, not scientific truths. It’s not about teaching HOW God created, but rather THAT God created. That he is responsible

[@redeemedchannel5580]

“Macro evolution has mountains upon mountains of evidence” Can you please give me one example?

[@blakerice7928]

@@redeemedchannel5580 Sure. “Many lobe-finned fish had both gills and lungs (modern lung fish are evolutionary descendants of these fish). This allowed them to survive in shallow, swampy, and plant-filled waters, as well as in regions susceptible to droughts. Their limb-like fins gave them greater mobility, and eventually allowed them to invade land and to find new sources of food. The first footprints of a four-legged animal in the geological record are of an amphibian that lived about 375 million years ago. The fossil record presents many similarities between lobe-finned fish and the first amphibians. The body outline of the latter clearly mirrors the former-one of the earliest amphibians looks like a fish with legs. These two creatures also share a very rare dental feature. They have labrinthodont teeth (Greek laburinthos: a maze; odontos: tooth). But the most remarkable transitional fossil evidence comes from the fins and limbs. Some lobe-fins evolved finger-like bones. Notably, there are 8 bones in the fins of a lobe-finned fish known as "the fish with fingers. It is no coincidence that the first amphibians often had 7-8 digits, pointing back to their origin from "fingered" fish. About 300 million years ago, these bones were reduced to the 5 digits commonly seen today in four-legged animals and us” (Lamoureux 106). And for an old Earth. “Coral reefs are made up of limestone that is laid down by the coral animals. These deposits also have layers of yearly banding. The rate of accumulation is known to be between 5 and 8 millimeters per year and measuring the thickness of a reef can determine its approximate age. In the Pacific Ocean, the Eniwetok reef is more than 4,500 feet thick and estimated to be at least 200,000 years old” (Lamoureux 96).

[@blakerice7928]

@@redeemedchannel5580 “Many lobe-finned fish had both gills and lungs (modern lung fish are evolutionary descendants of these fish). This allowed them to survive in shallow, swampy, and plant-filled waters, as well as in regions susceptible to droughts. Their limb-like fins gave them greater mobility, and eventually allowed them to invade land and to find new sources of food. The first footprints of a four-legged animal in the geological record are of an amphibian that lived about 375 million years ago. The fossil record presents many similarities between lobe-finned fish and the first amphibians. The body outline of the latter clearly mirrors the former-one of the earliest amphibians looks like a fish with legs. These two creatures also share a very rare dental feature. They have labrinthodont teeth (Greek laburinthos: a maze; odontos: tooth). But the most remarkable transitional fossil evidence comes from the fins and limbs. Some lobe-fins evolved finger-like bones. Notably, there are 8 bones in the fins of a lobe-finned fish known as "the fish with fingers. It is no coincidence that the first amphibians often had 7-8 digits, pointing back to their origin from "fingered" fish. About 300 million years ago, these bones were reduced to the 5 digits commonly seen today in four-legged animals and us” (Lamoureux 106). For an old earth “Coral reefs are made up of limestone that is laid down by the coral animals. These deposits also have layers of yearly banding. The rate of accumulation is known to be between 5 and 8 millimeters per year and measuring the thickness of a reef can determine its approximate age. In the Pacific Ocean, the Eniwetok reef is more than 4,500 feet thick and estimated to be at least 200,000 years old” (Lamoureux 96).

[@onionbelly_]

@@redeemedchannel5580 The evidence for the evolution of modern whales from land-dwelling mammals is quite comprehensive. Fossil records, genetic evidence, phylogenetics, comparative anatomy, biogeography, embryology and molecular biology all point to evolution.

[@Roottus]

Evolution delusion

[@FreedomInTruth777]

Evolution and the Christian God contredict eachother, you can believe in one or the other but you can't believe in both without contredicting logic and reason.

[@zachbeall6810]

That's not true.