(May 30, 2017 at 11:10 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Yup, another way to avoid any conflict is to say that any scientific discovery or advancement only shows how great god is in the first place.Collins said he was converted to Christianity after reading CS Lewis's "Mere Christianity". I guess it did not take much. That book is dull yet so many Christians find the statement that Christ was a liar, insane, or the Son of God to be a brilliant piece of logic. Merely a myth , maybe?
Side note: Collins isn't the head of the HGP any more (since that's over), he's actually the Director of the NIH as a whole. I work at the NIH and I've met him a few times. Immensely intelligent man, I just think he tacks on God too much - though that literally never comes up ever in decisions or discussions at the NIH. He's a scientist doing science, just with some private views that I think are misinformed.
But that just illustrates the point. If you can structure your religious beliefs in such a way that there is no conflict by definition (science being a demonstration of god, for example), then sure, you can't disprove that. But that claim that science is a demonstration of god is itself unfalsifiable and untestable, which is the only way to go if you want to make the round peg of religion fit the square hole of science.
God thinks it's fun to confuse primates. Larsen's God!