Some Key Quotes by George Coyne (to save you watching the whole hour) :
"Darwinian theory modernised is the best explanation we have of origins [evolution]"
Condensing the words of Cardinal Shernborne from his book : "Evolutionism : the scientific 'theory' of evolution to take the best scientific explanation we have, and extend it beyond the science/ To reduce the human being to a material object in the universe and fail to recognise that from other disciplines outside of science, there is a much 'richer' view of the human endeavour religion, culture in general, literature, poetry. The human being is more than methodologically, science can discover."
"what you cannot do, is on strictly scientific grounds, is deny the supernatural"
"the whole Christian literature and tradition from [~]2000BC are all well established human endeavours and clear evidence outside of science. If I examine that thought I can except it - I find I can accept it without divorcing my whole rational structure."
"There are ingredients of God speaking and true revelation in all [religious] traditions."
"All that we [Christians] believe are _human_ beliefs - and we have to accept the limitations of it, the fallibility of it/ that it's not absolute final truth that we have"
On literalist interpretation of scripture : "it reveals a very fundamental ignorance of what scripture is all about."
"The scientific explanation [of evolution] is the best explanation"
ID Creationism
"The distinction between the scientific methodology and the philosophical theological implications that you cannot deny that we as human beings are driven to deny or to assert that there are philosophical theological implications from our scientific results"
"It's a mistaken attempt to try and use science to establish the implications of science - to go beyond science to the philosophical theological interpretation"
"The fundamental fault of ID is that it steps outside scientific methodology and will not acknowledge it's doing it. It's a religious movement, intrinsically judged/ [even] judicially, to be so.
"It attempts to 'create' a God [that I don't believe in] that's a[n engineering type] designer. continually 'touching up' the universe because it's not running the way he/ she wanted it to run."
"Not only does it not admit that it's stepping outside of science, when it steps into religion, it's really an absurd religious [position]"
"In very general terms, from my religious faith and my scientific knowledge, God works through evolution... not only is he the source of all being, that is, God created the universe, he is continuously creating the universe, and is continually working with the universe as we know it scientifically. He created the universe that shares in his own dynamism and creativity through the evolutionary process. That is, he's not dominating the universe, an autocrat, a watchmaker, he's none of this. He's the God who created this universe he loves, and gave to that universe a creativity and dynamism of it's own."
"The philosophical God [who is explained as the prime mover] is not satisfying at all. It's the God who revealed himself in scripture: the God who got angry, who loved, who said to the people "you turn against me, you rebel against me, I will continue to love you through all the ages... that's the God of religious faith"
Cosmologists invoking a God of the gaps to explain the fine tuning of the universe : "It doesn't have an explanation. It's a scientific issue... God has no place."
"I will accept that the God in whom I believe gave himself superfluously, he gave his love for me, this is religious faith. If I could prove it, it wouldn't be religious faith"
"Many [Catholics] look for a God of explanations. We have brains to explore the universe and find answers to questions we have. God is not a God of explanation, primarily; he's a God of love. Consequently, I would accept that God is superfluous if I'm looking for a God to explain things... I don't need God. In fact, if God is a God of need, it's not God, because he transcends our needs. He gave himself superfluously, gratuitously. I didn't reason my way to God, I didn't work my way to God, I didn't earn this faith that I have, and this faith is nothing other than God himself. It's a whole other dimension of human life, it certainly is for me, and I'm afraid it's not shared by a lot of religious believers, that science has come to explain so much. That's why can't we simply accept, that if we work hard enough, science is going to explain everything, and God has become superfluous."
"I don't believe in the soul. That God put a soul into us at some point in evolution. From the material evolution, the spirit arose/ came through the evolutionary process. God of course is working with it all along, so I'm not taking God out of the process, in fact I'm putting him more into it than a God who put his finger at a magic moment into this evolutionary process."
"I believe "I" survive death. I don't believe my soul does. I do."
"I think evolution drives me to a more confident and meaningful belief in God. Just the opposite of driving me to atheism. The reason is, God is not a God of explanation. If I were seeking for a God of explanation for evolution I'd probably be an atheist ...if that was all that drove me was explanation I'd be driven to atheism."
"The reason that ID appeals to religious people, is because they look upon God as a God of explanation. To have a God that designed all this is clearly what they would want. Because if God did not design it then who did? And the answer scientifically of course is "nobody". "Nature, if you want". Because as we know very well, there is, if you want, a certain intrinsic destiny in evolutionary process : through survival of the fittest, and through chemical complexity : a more complex chemical ...it's future is more determined than a less complex chemical. Of course there's decomposition n'all, but apparently in the universe there was an intrinsic destiny to the whole thing. That's why we came about. That's why more complicated, more complex biological and chemical organisms come about, because there's a natural intrinsic destiny. But this does not mean that someone made it that way, that there's an intelligent designer. Religious thinkers always want to have God in the picture, and God does not want to be in the picture. He wants to be the source of it all, and continuing to sustain it all, but let it happen. that's my view of God.
"Darwinian theory modernised is the best explanation we have of origins [evolution]"
Condensing the words of Cardinal Shernborne from his book : "Evolutionism : the scientific 'theory' of evolution to take the best scientific explanation we have, and extend it beyond the science/ To reduce the human being to a material object in the universe and fail to recognise that from other disciplines outside of science, there is a much 'richer' view of the human endeavour religion, culture in general, literature, poetry. The human being is more than methodologically, science can discover."
"what you cannot do, is on strictly scientific grounds, is deny the supernatural"
"the whole Christian literature and tradition from [~]2000BC are all well established human endeavours and clear evidence outside of science. If I examine that thought I can except it - I find I can accept it without divorcing my whole rational structure."
"There are ingredients of God speaking and true revelation in all [religious] traditions."
"All that we [Christians] believe are _human_ beliefs - and we have to accept the limitations of it, the fallibility of it/ that it's not absolute final truth that we have"
On literalist interpretation of scripture : "it reveals a very fundamental ignorance of what scripture is all about."
"The scientific explanation [of evolution] is the best explanation"
ID Creationism
"The distinction between the scientific methodology and the philosophical theological implications that you cannot deny that we as human beings are driven to deny or to assert that there are philosophical theological implications from our scientific results"
"It's a mistaken attempt to try and use science to establish the implications of science - to go beyond science to the philosophical theological interpretation"
"The fundamental fault of ID is that it steps outside scientific methodology and will not acknowledge it's doing it. It's a religious movement, intrinsically judged/ [even] judicially, to be so.
"It attempts to 'create' a God [that I don't believe in] that's a[n engineering type] designer. continually 'touching up' the universe because it's not running the way he/ she wanted it to run."
"Not only does it not admit that it's stepping outside of science, when it steps into religion, it's really an absurd religious [position]"
"In very general terms, from my religious faith and my scientific knowledge, God works through evolution... not only is he the source of all being, that is, God created the universe, he is continuously creating the universe, and is continually working with the universe as we know it scientifically. He created the universe that shares in his own dynamism and creativity through the evolutionary process. That is, he's not dominating the universe, an autocrat, a watchmaker, he's none of this. He's the God who created this universe he loves, and gave to that universe a creativity and dynamism of it's own."
"The philosophical God [who is explained as the prime mover] is not satisfying at all. It's the God who revealed himself in scripture: the God who got angry, who loved, who said to the people "you turn against me, you rebel against me, I will continue to love you through all the ages... that's the God of religious faith"
Cosmologists invoking a God of the gaps to explain the fine tuning of the universe : "It doesn't have an explanation. It's a scientific issue... God has no place."
"I will accept that the God in whom I believe gave himself superfluously, he gave his love for me, this is religious faith. If I could prove it, it wouldn't be religious faith"
"Many [Catholics] look for a God of explanations. We have brains to explore the universe and find answers to questions we have. God is not a God of explanation, primarily; he's a God of love. Consequently, I would accept that God is superfluous if I'm looking for a God to explain things... I don't need God. In fact, if God is a God of need, it's not God, because he transcends our needs. He gave himself superfluously, gratuitously. I didn't reason my way to God, I didn't work my way to God, I didn't earn this faith that I have, and this faith is nothing other than God himself. It's a whole other dimension of human life, it certainly is for me, and I'm afraid it's not shared by a lot of religious believers, that science has come to explain so much. That's why can't we simply accept, that if we work hard enough, science is going to explain everything, and God has become superfluous."
"I don't believe in the soul. That God put a soul into us at some point in evolution. From the material evolution, the spirit arose/ came through the evolutionary process. God of course is working with it all along, so I'm not taking God out of the process, in fact I'm putting him more into it than a God who put his finger at a magic moment into this evolutionary process."
"I believe "I" survive death. I don't believe my soul does. I do."
"I think evolution drives me to a more confident and meaningful belief in God. Just the opposite of driving me to atheism. The reason is, God is not a God of explanation. If I were seeking for a God of explanation for evolution I'd probably be an atheist ...if that was all that drove me was explanation I'd be driven to atheism."
"The reason that ID appeals to religious people, is because they look upon God as a God of explanation. To have a God that designed all this is clearly what they would want. Because if God did not design it then who did? And the answer scientifically of course is "nobody". "Nature, if you want". Because as we know very well, there is, if you want, a certain intrinsic destiny in evolutionary process : through survival of the fittest, and through chemical complexity : a more complex chemical ...it's future is more determined than a less complex chemical. Of course there's decomposition n'all, but apparently in the universe there was an intrinsic destiny to the whole thing. That's why we came about. That's why more complicated, more complex biological and chemical organisms come about, because there's a natural intrinsic destiny. But this does not mean that someone made it that way, that there's an intelligent designer. Religious thinkers always want to have God in the picture, and God does not want to be in the picture. He wants to be the source of it all, and continuing to sustain it all, but let it happen. that's my view of God.
