Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Jonathan Wells reflects on the importance of “junk DNA” to Francis Collins’ Language of God

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In a reflection on Francis Collins’s sudden resignation, Jonathan Wells mentions his enabling the harvesting of body parts from babies of 18–20 weeks gestation but he focuses on Collins’s book, The Language of God. (2006):

In the past 15 years, scores of people — some of them my personal friends — have told me how Collins’s 2006 book, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, convinced them that a devout Christian can also be a Darwinist. Most of those people, I’m afraid, never read the book, or at least did not read past the first few pages. On those first pages Collins reported that in 2000 scientists released a rough draft of a sampling of human DNA. President Bill Clinton then announced, in a speech Collins helped to write, “we are learning the language in which God created life.”

Yet the remainder of Collins’s book was an argument against that idea. Instead, Collins argued that data from DNA sequencing provide “powerful support for Darwin’s theory of evolution, that is, descent from a common ancestor with natural selection operating on randomly occurring variations.” Probably the most powerful support came from what Collins called “junk DNA.” A creator, he argued, would not have put so much junk in our DNA, so it must have come from unguided evolution. (This is an odd way to argue for a supposedly scientific theory, namely that God wouldn’t have done it that way. Darwin argued similarly in The Origin of Species. But let’s overlook this theological aspect of Darwin’s and Collins’s argument.)

Jonathan Wells, “Recalling Francis Collins’s The Language of God” at Evolution News and Science Today (October 8, 2021)

Of course, we know what happened to the “junk DNA” thesis.

Wells reflects,

It’s not a moral failure to be mistaken about evidence that supposedly supports Darwinian evolution. But the title of Collins’s Language of God was deceptive from the start. And Collins has looked the other way as it has continued to deceive. I consider this one more moral failure of Francis Collins.

Jonathan Wells, “Recalling Francis Collins’s The Language of God” at Evolution News and Science Today (October 8, 2021)

You may also wish to read:

At Evolution News and Science Today:The Appalling Moral Failure of Francis Collins (A prominent theistic evolutionist) John G. West: The disclosures about the experiments followed Collins’s repeal earlier this year of restrictions on the use of aborted fetal tissue in NIH-funded research… researchers also sliced off skin from the scalp of the aborted babies and then grafted the fetal skin onto the mice. In the words of the scientists: “Full-thickness human fetal skin was processed via removal of excess fat tissues attached to the subcutaneous layer of the skin, then engrafted over the rib cage, where the mouse skin was previously excised.” The body parts used for these experiments were harvested from aborted human fetuses with a gestational age of 18-20 weeks. By that age, an unborn baby has brain waves and a beating heart. He can hear sounds and move his limbs and eyes …

and

Casey Luskin reflects on the “official” demise of the term “junk DNA.” Luskin: “these authors remember a day when ‘the common doctrine was that the nonprotein coding part of eukaryotic genome’ consisted of ‘“useless sequences, often organized in repetitive elements.’” Good. Keep the history alive. It won’t be very long before Darwinians start claiming that they never thought it was junk. Then they will start insinuating that WE said it was junk. No, that doesn’t make any sense but if the history is forgotten, it doesn’t need to make sense either.

Comments
if Darwin’s theory is so obviously and demonstrably wrong, would it be necessary to attack it – and its author – so desperately?
Darwin’s ideas were amazing insight and accepted by ID. They just don’t have anything to do with Evolution. Darwin made one unwarranted conclusion not justified by his ideas. Nor supported by any evidence since his original work. That is the issue. Not Darwin’s ideas/observations about the natural world. So anyone anywhere criticizing Darwin is doing a disservice to science. He got one essential thing wrong but the basic ideas were amazing insight. Does anyone disagree that genetics is a valid science? That is what Darwin started. Along with Mendel at the same time. Each was missing a major element though Mendel read Darwin. That’s what Watson and Crick contributed to with their discovery of the structure of DNA and then how it produced proteins. Little to do with what life is or Evolution but the basis of genetics. When all this is delineated the discussions become more rational and evidence based. What were Darwin’s amazing insight? (1) there were variations added to the germ genomes. Absolutely verified by science. (2) these variations were inherited. Absolutely verified ny science. (3) natural selection based on adaptation to the environment affected which of these variations may become prominent. Absolutely verified by science. Nothing to do with Evolution which was his invalid conclusion but the basis for a lot of what is seen in the world.jerry
October 11, 2021
October
10
Oct
11
11
2021
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT
Darwinists ask the questions that Christians are afraid to ask. They ask why God allows the creatures He is supposed to love above all others to suffer in the many ways they do. Apparently, for Christians, when their God says “Jump!”, the only question they ask is “How high?”
Just the opposite. I commented here several times recently that this is the best of all possible worlds and you have failed to challenge it. My guess is that your comment has been answered several times and shown to be irrelevant for the Christian God. Why do you continue to make specious claims? One reason is you are an ID supporter and Christian and are here to show that those against either haven’t a coherent argument against them. On that you have succeeded.jerry
October 11, 2021
October
10
Oct
11
11
2021
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT
Scientific theories are provisional.
:) If this is true then what are you arguing about? Don't you think you should wait until "provisional" become " absolute" ? Oh you would be dead until then.
Darwinists should not ask whether God is good or bad, or whether God should do things the way Darwinists may like … instead, DARWINISTS SHOULD GO BACK TO THEIR FANCY LABS, AND WORK MUCH HARDER to demonstrate that life of Earth is a result of lucky chemical accident …
Now that's a good answer .On the other way if you spend more time thinking of darwinists than to God what is your real benefit?Hanks
October 11, 2021
October
10
Oct
11
11
2021
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT
seversky @6
Darwinists ask the questions that Christians are afraid to ask. They ask why God allows the creatures He is supposed to love above all others to suffer in the many ways they do.
In order to prove that life on Earth is a result of lucky chemical accident, Darwinists should not ask whether God is good or bad, or whether God should do things the way Darwinists may like ... instead, DARWINISTS SHOULD GO BACK TO THEIR FANCY LABS, AND WORK MUCH HARDER to demonstrate that life of Earth is a result of lucky chemical accident ... But after 150 years of Darwinism, the fact is, that Darwinists are nowhere close to prove anything :))))) So they keep saying and asking irrelevant things ....martin_r
October 11, 2021
October
10
Oct
11
11
2021
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT
seversky @6 I realize this will come as a shock to you, but so far, Darwinists were always wrong... no more comments needed ...martin_r
October 11, 2021
October
10
Oct
11
11
2021
04:13 AM
4
04
13
AM
PDT
So Seversky, the fact that Darwin, by his own admission in many cases, was being being purposely deceptive about the lack of evidence for, and implications of, his theory is to be dismissed simply because it is an ad hominem against his character? But alas Seversky, that particular character flaw of deceptiveness goes to very question of whether his theory is valid or not. So it is not just to fallaciously dismiss his argument solely by calling his character into question, i.e. an ad hominem, but it is to realize the truth of the fact that that particular character flaw of deceptiveness goes to the very heart of the question of whether his theory is even true or not, and is also to realize Darwin 'sold' his theory to the general public under false pretenses. You said it was 'desperate' to point this character flaw out. Yet, if a knew that a used car salesman was purposely, and deceptively, trying to sell you a worthless lemon and did not warn you about that, what would your reaction to me be then? I'm pretty sure your reaction to me knowingly allowing you to be taken to the cleaners would be far from you calling me 'desperate'. Indeed, your question to me would in all likelihood be, 'How could you dare allow him to take me to the cleaners like that?" Indeed, I'm pretty sure you would never forgive me for knowingly allowing you to be deceived in such a way.bornagain77
October 11, 2021
October
10
Oct
11
11
2021
02:14 AM
2
02
14
AM
PDT
Bornagain77/3
Speaking of being purposely deceptive with evidence, yesterday I stumbled across a pdf of Jerry Bergman’s book, “The ‘Dark Side’ of Charles Darwin” in which he lists many instances where Darwin himself was being purposely deceptive in ‘selling’ his theory
Looking at the chapter headings, Bergman's book looks like an extended and fallacious ad hominem attack on Darwin. It never seems to occur to ID/creationists to ask why, if Darwin's theory is so obviously and demonstrably wrong, would it be necessary to attack it - and its author - so desperately?Seversky
October 10, 2021
October
10
Oct
10
10
2021
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT
Martin_r/2
Like i said, Darwinists are clueless how to design the simplest biological systems, SO HOW COULD THEY KNOW WHAT ARE GOD’S INTENTIONS ??????
Darwinists ask the questions that Christians are afraid to ask. They ask why God allows the creatures He is supposed to love above all others to suffer in the many ways they do. Apparently, for Christians, when their God says "Jump!", the only question they ask is "How high?".
“…current concepts are reviewed…” “…uprooting current thinking….” “…latest findings contradict the current dogma….” “… it challenges a long-held theory…” “… it upends a common view…” “… it needs a rethink … ” “… the findings are surprising and unexpected …. ” “… it shakes up the dogma … ” “… earlier than thought…” “… younger than thought….” “… smarter than thought ….” “… more complex that thought ….”
I realize this will come as a shock to you, but science doesn't make any claims to Absolute Truth (TM). That's for religion. Scientific theories are provisional. They change as new information comes along which is what they are supposed to do. Hence the comments you list above.Seversky
October 10, 2021
October
10
Oct
10
10
2021
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT
Atheists fail again! https://uncommondescent.com/junk-dna/casey-luskin-reflects-on-the-official-demise-of-the-term-junk-dna/Truth Will Set You Free
October 10, 2021
October
10
Oct
10
10
2021
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT
Martin_r @2, Nicely summarized in your list! And regardless of the shattering evidence, those same announcements always say that this brings us closer to understanding how evolution musta worked rather than admitting they were totally wrong . . . as with spontaneous generation, missing links, 100+ vestigial organs, so-called living fossils (that didn't evolve), and junk DNA. -QQuerius
October 10, 2021
October
10
Oct
10
10
2021
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT
Speaking of being purposely deceptive with evidence, yesterday I stumbled across a pdf of Jerry Bergman's book, "The 'Dark Side' of Charles Darwin" in which he lists many instances where Darwin himself was being purposely deceptive in 'selling' his theory.
The Dark Side of Charles Darwin A Critical Analysis of an Icon of Science - Jerry Bergman - 2011 Table of Contents Foreword Introduction Part One — Darwin and Christianity Chapter 1: How Darwin Overthrew Creationism Among the Intellectual Establishment Chapter 2: Why Darwinism Demands Atheism Chapter 3: Darwin’s Religious Views Chapter 4: Darwin’s Religion of Purposelessness Part Two — Darwin and Mental Health Chapter 5: Was Darwin Psychotic? A Study of His Mental Health Chapter 6: Were Darwin’s Mental Health Problems Due to His Conflicts with Theism? Chapter 7: Darwin’s Passion for Hunting and Killing Part Three — Darwin and His Theory Chapter 8: Did Darwin Plagiarize His Evolution Theory? Chapter 9: Darwin’s Faulty Scholarship — a Review Chapter 10: Pangenesis: Darwin’s Now Disproved Theory Part Four — Darwin, Racism, and Sexism Chapter 11: Was Darwin a Racist? Chapter 12: Darwin Inspires Eugenics Chapter 13: Darwin’s View of Women Chapter 14: Darwin Was Wrong: Natural Selection Cannot Explain Macro-Evolution http://sarkoups.free.fr/darwinbergman.pdf "I may here also confess that as a little boy I was much given to inventing deliberate falsehoods, and this was always done for the sake of causing excitement. For instance, I once gathered much valuable fruit from my father's trees and hid it in the shrubbery, and then ran in breathless haste to spread the news that I had discovered a hoard of stolen fruit." - Charles Darwin - The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Volume I - pg 14
bornagain77
October 10, 2021
October
10
Oct
10
10
2021
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT
” A creator, he (Collins) argued, would not have put so much junk in our DNA, so it must have come from unguided evolution. (This is an odd way to argue for a supposedly scientific theory, namely that God wouldn’t have done it that way.
Collins is a typical Evolutionist/Darwinist (don't matter whether he believes in God or not). These guys are nowhere close to design the basic parts of a cell (e.g. cell membrane), let alone to design a simplest cell... but they always have bold claims - e.g. that God wouldn’t have done it that way. Like i said, Darwinists are clueless how to design the simplest biological systems, SO HOW COULD THEY KNOW WHAT ARE GOD'S INTENTIONS ?????? I always liked Jonathan Wells, i like his voice, and the way he puts things ... and i can only agree with him, that "This is an odd way to argue for a supposedly scientific theory" Such odd arguments reminds me on Seversky's childish arguments, e.g. that God has a strange way how to show his love, because he created viruses and other pathogens ... Again, HOW YOU DARWINISTS COULD KNOW WHAT ARE GOD'S INTENTIONS ??? Because you think something ? :))))) Moreover, we see it everyday, you Darwinists are clueless and always wrong ... always ... e.g. "...current concepts are reviewed..." "...uprooting current thinking...." "...latest findings contradict the current dogma...." “… it challenges a long-held theory…” “… it upends a common view…” “… it needs a rethink … ” “… the findings are surprising and unexpected …. ” “… it shakes up the dogma … ” “… earlier than thought…” “… younger than thought….” “… smarter than thought ….” “… more complex that thought ….”martin_r
October 9, 2021
October
10
Oct
9
09
2021
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT
Of course, we know what happened to the “junk DNA” thesis.
Yes, it's still going strong.Seversky
October 9, 2021
October
10
Oct
9
09
2021
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply