…and this is a 
Jesus in a pita, Madonna in bird poop, gods speaking through the arrangement of viscera…we're used to ridiculous religious pattern seeking. A reader, Mike Barnes, wrote in to tell me about a scientist who has been playing the same game: Francis Collins sees DNA in stained glass windows.
Collins showed two images--a stained-glass rose window often seen in Christian churches, and an eerily similar graphic that he described as "looking down the barrel" of DNA's double helix.
"I'm not trying to say that there's something inherently religious" in the DNA image, Collins emphasized. "But, I think it is emblematic of the potential here of the topic to both interest people and to make them unsettled. Can you, in fact, admire both of these [images]? Can you do it at the same time? Is there an inherent problem in having both a scientific world view and a spiritual world view?"
You know you've taken a long stroll on a short limb when you start using phrases like "emblematic of the potential" and start seeing significance in the fact that people can see what they want to see in a random image. Collins is also making a peculiar leap to associate the Rose Window with 'spirituality'. As Barnes explains:
In his 2008 lecture Francis Collins used a slide of York Minster's beautiful Rose Window as his first religious analogy. Not only is this spurious in principle, but also in fact:
I went to York University; a good friend (and atheist) was doing his PhD on the stained glass of York Minster. First, and more trivially, the Rose Window only looks the way it does on Collins' slide because the medium of film completely distorts the exposure to create a spurious silhouette effect. It was never intended to be seen, or its meaning 'read', this way.
Also, Collins uses the Rose Window/genome slide and asks "do you have to make a choice between these two?". (science versus religion, he supposes) In fact the Rose Window was designed in the 16th century as propaganda for the bloodthirsty Tudor dynasty, celebrating the union of Henry 7th and Elizabeth of York. The rose was the dynastic symbol: red for Lancashire, white for York. So the roses round the edge are as much symbols of victorious, naked state power as swastikas were in Nazi Germany - albeit more picturesque.
So, nothing to do with god or Jebus - or is the mere fact it's situated in a Cathedral enough for Collins?
I've seen this comparison of Rose Window/DNA genome on Christian propaganda before and as someone who saw the original it annoys me a lot. Collins assumes a photographically-distorted soft-focus image can 'say' something about the genome. Unless he simply means, 'here's something old and pretty to see, and hey, the genome kinda looks like it' the facts about the Rose Window blow his analogy to pieces. Or maybe he really loves old, bloodthirsty tyrants?
I can look at the Rose Window and see a piece of history; some interesting architecture; a pretty pattern; the product of skilled human labor; a monument to oppression; a relic of institutionalized superstition. There are also a few things I do not see. I do not see DNA, except that both DNA and the window share the extremely general property of exhibiting radial symmetry. I also do not see the hand of any god, because it is entirely the product of human hands and minds. There is an inherent problem in "having a spiritual worldview", in that it compels Collins to see things that are not there.
Whatever you do, don't let anyone show Collins the structure of laminin or potassium channels! I know it's too late to shield him from the sight of waterfalls.
Life Science
Humanities & Social Science
Comments
Posted by: Zeno | July 31, 2009 8:43 AM
Pretty! (Pretty poor proof of God.)
Posted by: lurker42 | July 31, 2009 8:46 AM
I see Spiro-graph and Lite-brite in that pic of DNA.
What does that mean??
Posted by: cervantes
|
July 31, 2009 8:46 AM
I don't think Collins is making any truth claim here -- at least none that I can decipher. He's just throwing up two unrelated things at the same time in order to create a pleasant association in people's minds. It's the basic trick of TV advertising -- you show people gamboling about and generally being happy and healthy and popular while you also show the product and that makes people like the product. See, my window is pretty and it looks kind of like that scientific stuff y'all like so you should like church. That's all it amounts to. Very silly, to be sure.
Posted by: Kausik Datta | July 31, 2009 8:48 AM
This keeps getting better and better! (NOT!)
Cue Defenders of St. Francis of Collins... "But he is a great scientist", "But he is a great administrator", blah, blah, blah... If religion is turning his brain to mush, do they seriously mean to say that it is not going to impact on his scientific outlook and science policy in general?
National Institutes of Holiness - coming soon.
Posted by: LisaJ | July 31, 2009 8:49 AM
Wow. Those two images look almost nothing alike. What molecule has this guy actually been working on? I think he may be confused.
Posted by: matt | July 31, 2009 8:54 AM
collins is such a terd...
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 31, 2009 8:59 AM
Grilled with some pickled red onion, a little basil mayo, lettuce, cherry tomato compote and bacon...
Ummmmmm I love Jesus Pitas.
Posted by: Rick R | July 31, 2009 9:00 AM
"Or maybe he really loves old, bloodthirsty tyrants?"
Well, he is a christian.
Posted by: Anon | July 31, 2009 9:02 AM
Ok, he has convinced me! The Mandala archetype is at the center of both biology and religion, and both are fictional byproducts of our collective unconscious!
Wait, that's not his point?
Posted by: Terry
|
July 31, 2009 9:03 AM
Looking at the two slides, it's easy to see how Collins followers will seize on this wacko idea and run with it.
What is astonishing though, it that a highly touted scientist like Collins would present such nonsense.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
July 31, 2009 9:10 AM
Collins wants to have his cake and eat it. On the one hand, he's trying to present these images as simply illustrative, rather than inherently meaningful. On the other hand, he poses the question as though the false-dichotomy he presents - can you admire both images - can be drawn from the consideration of the two depictions.
Posted by: Paleos | July 31, 2009 9:11 AM
This leaves me almost speachless and unable to complete sentences;
"They're not alike, how...?"
"But why would someone connect...?"
"Arrrrgghhh, my head..."
Posted by: KI | July 31, 2009 9:12 AM
In the interest of exploiting the gullible and adding some much-needed cash to his account, my old rock-hunting partner has found a nice piece of sandstone that has a "picture" of Juheezuz in a three-quarter profile. Soon to be seen on e-bay! I'll let y'all know when he uploads the picture, it's a lot better than most of the images I've seen.
Posted by: ERV | July 31, 2009 9:12 AM
Does this men that everything in nature that doesnt resemble Evangelical Christian iconography is an abomination?
Posted by: GAZZA | July 31, 2009 9:13 AM
Forget Rose Windows and DNA. I was curious enough to view the video of the evangelist raving about laminin. His diagram of laminin looks supiciously like the doctors symbol of the two serpents wrapped around a staff. If we are to believe the biblical view that Satan appears in the form of a serpent then evangelist must really mean it is satan that is holding our bodies together. Then again maybe he was the snake himself speaking with a 'forked tongue'. Either that or I too am seeing patterns that aren't there.
Posted by: Matt H.
|
July 31, 2009 9:13 AM
I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, its pretty common at least here in the UK for religious folk to make this kind of comparison without being extremists. The C of E do it all the time. However, we know from other statements that Collins is indeed an evangelical, so this should come as no surprise. What should be surprising is the fact that someone with such absurd, fantasist views of the universe can also be a top scientist.
Posted by: Epikt | July 31, 2009 9:15 AM
That's such a perfect encapsulation of religion. Any other view of a DNA molecule would make it obvious that the two objects are not at all alike. But Collins cherry-picks a special view that he apparently thinks makes his woo more plausible. I thought PZ's treatment of Collins was over the top, but stuff like this makes it harder and harder to make that case.
Posted by: Andrew Bolton | July 31, 2009 9:16 AM
Well in the centre of the dna miage is either a space invader or some alien skull or possibly the front of a tube train (eg http://www.squarewheels.org.uk/rly/stock/1967tubeStock/)
the window is ...a window. or anything arranged in a circle, like the pistons on an old WW1 rotary aircrat engine. Maybe Biggles is God.
Posted by: Andyman | July 31, 2009 9:16 AM
Nice stained glass windows, but no DNA sorry.
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | July 31, 2009 9:17 AM
Radial symmetry is the only thing I see there... hmmm... maybe my atheist brain is making me ignore things that are actually there! No... no... there's nothing there.
And we now have proof that Collins is actually a 3-year-old boy astonished by shiny objects equivalent to that which would come out of a spirograph or a Kaleidoscope.
Posted by: Porky Pine | July 31, 2009 9:22 AM
I see a nibbler in the top one.
Posted by: Muzz | July 31, 2009 9:24 AM
That's not stained glass that DNA resembles. It's Sinistar!
In conclusion; Sinistar is therefore god.
Run Coward!
Posted by: charley
|
July 31, 2009 9:26 AM
...and pretty colors, of course.
Posted by: dave
|
July 31, 2009 9:31 AM
i don't know what was funnier, the video of that guy or the structure of laminin
Posted by: parkrrrr | July 31, 2009 9:32 AM
Of course he likes old, bloodthirsty tyrants. Worships one, in fact.
I recently spoke briefly with an old stained glass artisan, who seemed to take it as a given that any rose window would have 12-way radial symmetry. I note that Collins' DNA image has 10-way radial symmetry. I guess the Creator must be telling us to convert to the metric system.
Posted by: toomanytribbles | July 31, 2009 9:32 AM
pz, you're ridiculing the fact that collins merges his religious views and his work.
congratulations. please do more.
@lurker42... it reminds me of spirograph too -- blessed are the hypotrochoids and epitrochoids.
Posted by: Kris | July 31, 2009 9:42 AM
He asks if I can, in fact, admire both of these images. Well, I don't have to be religious in any way to admire the beauty of the rose window (or any rose window, or stained glass in churches in general) and I don't have to be a scientist to admire the image of DNA. I can, in fact, admire both with no problem at all, because I can appreciate them on their own merits. I don't have to like waterlillies to appreciate Monet, after all!
Posted by: Watchman | July 31, 2009 9:46 AM
Yup. Praise the Holy Spirograph.
As for the question, I would answer "No, you don't have to choose between the two," but it's foolish to even suggest the two patterns in any way represent the same thing.
Posted by: E.V. | July 31, 2009 9:47 AM
Dammit, #2 stole my thunder. I was gonna say, "My childhood Spiro-graph was proof of God?!!"
Collins must go into paroxysms at Laser Concerts.
Posted by: MadScientist | July 31, 2009 9:48 AM
That stained glass window looks like squids arranged in a radial pattern - well, that or phalluses.
Posted by: NewEnglandBob
|
July 31, 2009 9:49 AM
"similar graphic"
Where is that? I see few similarities - oh yeah, both have 'roundness' and 'pieces' - silly me!
Posted by: E.V. | July 31, 2009 9:51 AM
I'd love to hear the analysis of MadScientist's Rorschach test.
Posted by: JBlilie | July 31, 2009 9:52 AM
Exactly!
There's nothing similar about them except radial symmetry, which is rather common.
The entire association is just nonsense. But then all the "arguments" for religion or a religious viewpoint are just nonsense.
As I see it, there are only two realistic arguments to be made in favor of religion and both are practical ones:
1. People find it comforting (and maybe a large percentage of the population in the US wouldn't find comfort elsewhere -- although the example of western Europe rather gives the lie to that.)
2. It helps with social cohesion (well, ask someone in Northern Ireland or Palestine about that, or Gujarat or Punjab)
All other arguments for the existence of God, the "rightness" of one particular religion, etc., etc., are just purely specious.
I am almost done reading Sagan's The Varieties of Scientific Experience. It is superb. I highly recommend it to you all. It is a wonderfully distilled example of the skeptic's view of religion. In spite of its title, it is Sagan's discussion of religion during his 1985 Gifford Lectures at .
Here is one scrap:
Sagan neatly and succinctly disposes of the "arguments for god(s)" and nicely exposes the reasons why any skeptic would strongly doubt the rightness of any religion and the existence of any gods. It's brilliant stuff. at the same time it shows his wonder for the universe, for the discoveries of science and his humanity.
Posted by: JBlilie | July 31, 2009 9:54 AM
"at Glasgow" it was supposed to have said ...
Posted by: JJR | July 31, 2009 9:55 AM
Collins asks:
"Is there an inherent problem in having both a scientific world view and a spiritual world view?"
Yes, yes there is.
One is sober, rational, reflective, forms hypotheses and tests them, demanding evidence, generally concerned with determining what is true and real.
The other is muddle-headed, seeks warm fuzzies, disdains hard intellectual work as a "bummer" and wants to believe there could be a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, though if pressed will say "oh, I mean a METAPHORICAL pot of gold, silly."
Posted by: E.V. | July 31, 2009 9:59 AM
Is that some new combination of turd, 'tard and nerd? If so, it's apt.Posted by: Schmeer | July 31, 2009 10:00 AM
Isn't the picture of DNA just a representation of a real thing? I don't think any of the atoms that make up the double helix resemble nice straight lines, do they? It's an abstraction, you dipshit, Collins.
Posted by: Shygetz | July 31, 2009 10:00 AM
I also find it interesting that DNA does not look like that! Now, remove the false coloring, replace your cutesy ball model with an electron density map, and THEN tell me it looks like a rose window.
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 31, 2009 10:04 AM
Does Collins do any actual science or even scientific administration anymore? Or does he just go around making up wanky bollocks about his ever-so sciencey God? This is the trouble I have with his appointment to head the NIH; it sets the precedent that the job isn't really about being an administrator or a public face of science, but rather being a tent show revivalist in a labcoat.
Posted by: E.V. | July 31, 2009 10:07 AM
And of course, it's color enhanced to help distinguish characteristics. Face it, Collins would find god even in a pile of shit.
Posted by: Caine | July 31, 2009 10:07 AM
Someone needs to set up a quiet, isolated office for Collins, well stocked with paper and spirographs. An aide can show up once in a while with faked grant apps for him to approve; while someone competent actually administers the office.
Posted by: E.V. | July 31, 2009 10:09 AM
The Skull A Day website would love the DNA graphic. (for all you Boing Boing readers)
Posted by: Martin | July 31, 2009 10:11 AM
Actually that rose window reminds me of a different image that you used to see online now and then. Goat something...
Posted by: AdamK | July 31, 2009 10:11 AM
Ooh! Rounds things are all about god! Deeeeep.
Tell me again how religion is about "big questions" and adds "meaning" to our lives and is "another way of knowing."
You can't be moral without round stuff? Really.
Posted by: Rock Prof | July 31, 2009 10:13 AM
I see the radial symmetry of cnidarians.
This of course, is emblematic of our true lords and masters - the giant space jellyfish overlords who will one day return and consume us.
Posted by: SEF | July 31, 2009 10:17 AM
What an eejit! Of course rotational symmetry is pretty. Duh! However, his rose window example has completely the wrong symmetry for DNA (as well as the wrong symbolism in other ways, along with DNA colouring being artificially chosen anyway). He might as well have likened it to a secular kaleidoscope toy.
Meanwhile, the religion which included the symmetry thing best is Islam - because of its ban on organic (real life) representational art! And they did do the 10-fold/5-fold thing much more. I don't see him converting to Islam though. Plus there's a certain irony in lauding the similarity of form which that bunch were actively seeking to dodge.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | July 31, 2009 10:23 AM
Excuse my islamophobic, conservofascist, intolerably tolerant ignorance; but isn't the apparent radial pattern shown in the micrograph of a DNA molecule an artifact of how the micrograph was taken? An appearance dependent on the point of view of the photographer?
Posted by: truthspeaker | July 31, 2009 10:31 AM
Yes, Dr. Collins, I can appreciate both science and art. What the hell does that have to do with religion or spirituality?
Posted by: Jim K | July 31, 2009 10:38 AM
You know what else has radial symmetry? A doughnut. If that doesn't prove the existence of god then I don't know what will.
Posted by: E.V. | July 31, 2009 10:43 AM
WTF? Is this confessional admonishment an artifact from another thread?Posted by: littlejohn | July 31, 2009 12:01 PM
Those windows are absolutely beautiful. Why can't those dumbasses appreciate the achievement of the craftsmen who made them, rather than inserting some religion=science horseshit? Xians hate science except when they think it bolsters their fairy myth, then they ride its coattails. You can't have it both ways.
Posted by: Mike Daniels | July 31, 2009 12:06 PM
I'm amazed by what I see. In awe, in fact.
Why?
For centuries, scientists have known about DNA, and tried to tell us through allegory and myth. The ancient Greeks, for example, secretly expressed the double-helix in the caduceus.
Finally, we have undeniable proof that 16th century scientists were also aware of DNA! Just look at this window, no doubt designed by brilliant scientists who read and understood the ancient Atlantean texts!
The clever scientists put this window, which looks just like the view "down the barrel" of a strand of DNA, in a grand cathedral. Why?
First, to ensure that millions would see it over the centuries, and recognize the complex and beautiful glory of the natural world.
Second, to thumb their noses at the church! Truly this is the stuff of life, not the wine and crackers served at Church Snacktime.
Third, so that someday, someone could recognize this coded image, and it would be understood that they weren't all superstitious fools, chasing after magical fairies and leprechauns' pots of gold. Some of them had their feet firmly on the ground.
Finally, centuries later, their efforts have come to fruition.
Thank you, Francis Collins!
[/sarcasm]
Posted by: AC | July 31, 2009 12:06 PM
In short, yes. He certainly doesn't require much rigor in his religious pursuits.
Epikt @ 17: Agreed. I can't help imagining Collins as a character in a Dan Brown novel.
Collins: "Here is a DNA molecule."
Scientist: "Okay, sure. Familiar double-helix..."
Collins, rotating the molecule: "And now?"
Scientist: "My God, it's a Rose Window!"
Collins: "To the Cathedral!"
[cue spinning logo and theme song]
Posted by: Siamang | July 31, 2009 12:26 PM
Wait a minute. Perhaps it's not DNA that resembles the Rose Window. Perhaps it's foot and mouth disease!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/footandmouth/graphic/0,7367,441929,00.html
Posted by: E.V. | July 31, 2009 12:31 PM
Siamang:
Naw, that one's just an old pillow my grandmother crocheted.
Posted by: JB | July 31, 2009 12:32 PM
I was lucky enough to be in the same group that solved this protein crystal structure:
http://www.gla.ac.uk/media/media_42394_en.jpg
It's round too.
And beautiful.
Unless you look at it side on, when it is flat.
Like the Rose window.
Or Baby Bel cheese. Which is also red - like the real protein.
But not like DNA.
Posted by: Jamie | July 31, 2009 12:34 PM
Well, people also recognize that ladders also resemble the double helix in DNA and I don't hear people claiming some divine connection between painters or users of ladders and biology.
Oh! These two things have something in common, they MUST have some connection!
Posted by: MikeyM | July 31, 2009 12:39 PM
Band name!
Posted by: E.V. | July 31, 2009 12:40 PM
Does someone have a link to that "food as medicine resembles what it cures" info. It's just too funny. (When I say funny, I mean sad)Posted by: Dennis | July 31, 2009 1:23 PM
Maybe seeing Jesus in a pita doesn't make someone crazy, just a bad speller. I'm pretty sure you can see him in every pieta.
Posted by: Jamie | July 31, 2009 1:35 PM
"food as medicine resembles what it cures"
Yes, I've heard that before, such as walnuts being good for your brain because of similar appearances.
(btw, how do you make block quotes?)
Posted by: uncle frogy | July 31, 2009 1:42 PM
Anon, >>>Ok, he has convinced me! The Mandala archetype is at the center of both biology and religion, and both are fictional byproducts of our collective unconscious!
Wait, that's not his point?
it would make more sense if it was his point. It is interesting what we as humans find attractive, that we make these kinds of images often all over the world. That they exist in nature and we find them even seek them out is interesting. That kind if looking for could lead someone in a useful direction as in seeing an apparent pattern and then checking to see if it is real or just "an artifact of observation"
Whether you call it spiritual insight (a word and expression I can not stand) or not makes no difference to me since to me spiritual sounds like some "elevated exalted" name for thought that is none consciously rational, like the insight one may get from a dream but not to be relied on without verifying in the waking state.
Posted by: Ary Shalizi | July 31, 2009 1:43 PM
In the quote associated with this post, is the author referring to the York Minster Rose Window, or to the general class of "Rose Windows"? Notre Dame was completed two centuries before the Tudors came on the scene, and it has a prominent rose window... see the following for a nice little history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_window
Posted by: E.V. | July 31, 2009 1:48 PM
its the (left arrow sign)* and then type blockquote followed by (right arrow sign), then paste your text and then end with the same as above but insert a / before blockquote.
*The shifts for comma and period
Posted by: Bronze Dog | July 31, 2009 1:50 PM
Muzz @22 beat me too it. I shouldn't have stayed up playing games and slept in.
"BEWARE, I LIVE!" -Sinistar
Posted by: Marty | July 31, 2009 1:50 PM
Squeek, squeek, squeek go the clown shoes.
Posted by: Mark A. Siefert | July 31, 2009 2:09 PM
@ Lurker42 #2
It means that your parents were more generous with birthday and holiday gifts than mine.
Posted by: Mike Daniels | July 31, 2009 2:20 PM
Ary @63 -
So you mean 14th Century scientists ALSO had read the Atlantean texts and were familiar with DNA?
This just gets more astounding with each passing comment!
Posted by: Mike Barnes | July 31, 2009 2:50 PM
Ary Shalizi -
You're right, there are loads of medieval Rose Windows but the one Dr. Collins used was the one in York Minster (you'll find his attribution in the talk he gave, and on his slide).
If your implication is that a Rose Window doesn't necessarily have associations of violent dynastic (Tudor) quarrels, you're absolutely right; on the other hand I thought it was instructive that an eminent scientist didn't bother to research his lecture slides better (i.e. he could have found a Xian Rose Window easily enough).
It seems critical thinking - or just plain decent research into sources - went out the Collins' mind as soon as religion entered it.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | July 31, 2009 3:06 PM
E.V @ #40:
Well, it would have to be brightly-colored shit. :P
Posted by: Jadehawk | July 31, 2009 3:57 PM
wtf?
if those pictures are supposed to illustrate any sort of dichotomy, they, at best, represent the intra-academic humanities (art history in this case) vs hard science (here, biology) rivalry.
Posted by: truthspeaker | July 31, 2009 4:33 PM
Jamie, you do <blockquote> </blockquote>
Posted by: Rodger T NZ
|
July 31, 2009 5:08 PM
I dunno about yous fellas, but in the top window I see a resemblance to Leonardos Vitruvian man.
Posted by: Watchman | July 31, 2009 5:12 PM
Sinistar? Pheh. Evil Otto exhibited radial symmetry long before Sinistar, the pretender, even existed!
Posted by: Holbach
|
July 31, 2009 5:49 PM
Collins should have just proclaimed that his god made that stained glass window and that measly DNA had the gall to copy it and then denounce divine intervention. I can picture him falling to his knees in front of that window and thinking to have one installed at the NIH.
Posted by: Xenithrys | July 31, 2009 5:52 PM
Paul McCartney claimed to be able to see his own DNA when tripping on acid. I suspect it looked to him just like the coloured ball and stick models (i.e., pre Watson & Crick he couldn't have had this vision).
DNA doesn't look like anything; it's too small to resolve an image in the visible light wavelengths.
So I think Collins tripping on religion and McCartney tripping on acid are about equivalently meaningful.
Posted by: Xenithrys | July 31, 2009 5:59 PM
It's called the doctrine of signatures, and it's said to have been organized by god as a sign to us. It was more often applied to herbal remedies than to food, e.g., the swollen roots of pilewort look like, so cure, hemorrhoids. Homeopathy probably owes something to this batshit notion.Posted by: Xenithrys | July 31, 2009 6:07 PM
I should have said you can't see the atoms or bases of DNA by magnifying it using visible light. Of course you can see DNA if you extract enough of it in a test tube or eppendorf tube. But it looks more like snot or semen than a stained glass window.Posted by: Alan Kellogg | July 31, 2009 7:43 PM
Xenithrys, #77
In hermetic magic it's known as the law of similarity. A more involved version is the law of sympathy, which includes similarity, contagion, and evocation. That is, what ever resembles, was once in contact with, or brings to mind something affects that something. It is, in short, magical thinking. The idea that correlation is causation is an example of this.
It's the same sort of thinking that says an image of Jesus on a toasted cheese sandwich means Jesus is there in your presence.
Posted by: DelictusCoeli | July 31, 2009 8:41 PM
@Alan Kellogg #79
Exactly. It's the same kind of magical thinking that you see in so much post-modern 'scholarship', as well. These two words/things have some sort of superficial similarity, therefore the connection between them is meaningful. Who knew Collins was on the 'forefront' of Humanities scholarship as well? He must be a very busy man.
Posted by: j a higginbotham | July 31, 2009 9:47 PM
The window is definitely magical. If you scroll the image up and down, the glass panes flutter; the DNA does no such thing.
Posted by: E.V. | July 31, 2009 10:08 PM
j a higginbotham : I want some of what you are smoking. Share the wealth.
Posted by: dreikin | August 1, 2009 12:31 AM
Neither DNA nor that 2D representation of it are radially symmetric. In the representation above, the "skull" in the middle (which I assume is due to a poor choice of bases if it was intended to be radially symmetric) makes it only bilaterally symmetric.But DNA is not even close - the spiral goes in three dimensions, not two, and exhibits chirality because of that. Left-rotating and right-rotating spirals do not look the same, and further, the presence of the major and minor grooves also set that off by giving 'sides' to the supposedly radially symmetric DNA.
Posted by: lurker42 | August 1, 2009 12:45 AM
Mark (#67):
Unfortunately no, they weren't. I just have the amazing ability to remember the commercials I saw back then (which have been reinforced by VH1, the Simpsons, etc).
I had to buy my own Lite-brite. Sad, ain't it?
Posted by: VegeBrain | August 1, 2009 1:25 AM
As soon as I read this my finely tuned sarcasm search engine went into high gear. And *bing* a search result came back.
Why doesn't Francis Collins see DNA in a cat's anus? Cat's are always walking around with their tails up; all he does is have to take a look and stand in godly awe at the similarity.
Posted by: The skepTick | August 1, 2009 1:45 AM
Better yet, what would Collins make of Dog Butt Jesus???
Posted by: vaibhav | August 1, 2009 8:48 PM
I can choose cracks on the road to represent Feynman diagrams!
Posted by: Amorphous Intelligence | August 4, 2009 10:12 AM
Here's some pareidolia for ya: http://amorphousintelligence.wordpress.com/2009/08/04/holy-sht/
Posted by: Emery | November 27, 2009 7:06 PM
Mr Collins point was that the window had designers and builders who had a purpose. It was not a product of random chance. Likewise, the universe and life (DNA) show design and purpose, and must have been built by someone. It is a good analogy, as far as any analogy goes.
Sarcasm can be very clever, but it does not change the truth. Where did the original "stuff" come from? All of the non-god answers fail to answer this question.
Posted by: John Morales | November 27, 2009 7:30 PM
Emery:
Not really. Teleonomy.
Perhaps. But so do the god-answers, and much less parsimoniously, to their detriment.
Such an "explanation" invites the question: Where did this putative¹ god-stuff come from?
--
¹ We know stuff exists, so it merits trying to explain it; the god-concept is not known to exist and is therefore putative.
Posted by: How to Get Rid of Hemorrhoids | December 5, 2009 8:10 PM
Just so you know I have added you to my bookmarks.
I've check out your other blog posts too and I {can say|think| you've got great ideas|content. Keep it up|going!
Posted by: Greg Jones
|
June 1, 2010 6:19 PM
I think you guys are missing the point. Why would beauty exist in a universe that evolved from random processes via chance with no aid of a creator?
And the order inherent in DNA can only come from intelligence. This is why we don't ask what trees the paper was made out of for a great book we have read. We instead inquire about the author. The information comes from intelligence.
"There is an inherent problem in "having a spiritual worldview", in that it compels Collins to see things that are not there."
To say that God's handiwork is not in DNA is just as unprovable as to say that it is. Therefore, the quote is contradictory in that it is a faith statement refuting the notion of faith.