‘Evangelistic’ scientist tapped to lead National Institute of Health

[jgraz]

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/07/09/man-new-testament-first-hand-nih

‘Evangelistic’ scientist tapped to lead National Institute of Health

Believes New Testament consists of ‘first hand accounts’

The scientist chosen by President Barack Obama to lead the National Institute of Health has a controversial history of mixing politics with faith.

Dr. Francis Collins was a leading pioneer in human genome research and was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President George W. Bush in 2007. He led the government’s successful efforts to decode the human genome.

...


Collins is also the author of a book that posits that science can provide the foundation for religious belief. The book, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, argues that “God is most certainly not threatened by science; He made it all possible.”

“In my view,” Collins later writes, “DNA sequence alone, even if accompanied by a vast trove of data on biological function, will never explain certain special human attributes, such as the knowledge of the Moral Law and the universal search for God.”

Oh god. :eyes:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. Way to grasp at straws, Jgraz.

You've become a true master.

[grantcart]

2. A brilliant choice

A brilliant genetic scientist who is a practicing Christian is considered one of the leading ethicists in using gene therapies and is against insurance companies using genetic information for discrimination. He also has personal experience in third world medicine and has seen personally the critical need for bringing more effective health care to poor people:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins_(geneticist)

In addition to his long list of contributions to basic genetic research and scientific leadership, Collins is known for his close attention to ethical and legal issues in genetics. He has been a strong advocate for protecting the privacy of genetic information and has served as a national leader in efforts to prohibit gene-based insurance discrimination. Building on his own experiences as a physician volunteer in a rural missionary hospital in Nigeria, Collins is also very interested in opening avenues for genome research to benefit the health of people living in developing nations.

It is also a savvy political move. He has strong credentials in the Christian community but is an articulate critic of Intelligent Design and strongly supports the use of stem cell therapy. Conservatives in the legislature can't agree with his science but will be unable to argue against his policy for greater use of genetic science, more ethical use of genetic information - including proscribing use by private insurers, and his strong support of pure science.

Dr. Collins’s confirmation by the Senate is all but certain. He has long cultivated good relations on Capitol Hill. And since the administration finalized rules for broader use of stem cells in federal research before nominating him, anti-abortion forces will have a harder time using that issue to stop his confirmation.

Receives strong endorsement from the American Association for the Advancement of Science

Dr. Alan I. Leshner, chief executive of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said it was “an excellent idea to have a very credible geneticist heading N.I.H. at a time when we are pursuing so vigorously the promise of personalized medicine based on genomics."

Ground breaking scientist, Darwinist, Stem Cell supporter, against private insurance companies using genetic information, actively involved in third world health care, Ph'd from Yale, and was "praised by top scientists and research advocacy organizations for whom the health institute is a crucial patron."


Thanks for the links there was lots of valuable information, just none of it in your highly biased OP with a tortured edit of the NYT article (which itself unfairly undermined his science credentials by focusing on his personal faith).

[OneGrassRoot]

4. You are appreciated, Grantcart...

:thumbsup:

:hi:

[jgraz]

5. I don't need to undermine his science credentials

His own magical thinking and "God of the gaps" proselytizing do quite well in that regard.

[SpartanDem]

6. So believing in God makes him unqualified?

What a stupid and bigoted statement

[jgraz]

10. Believing that God is directly responsible for phenomena that he studies disqualifies him

Would you want to hire a physicist who thinks electrons move because baby jesus tells them to? Or a cosmologist who thinks God started the Big Bang?

This is equivalent to the Amish bus driver or the pharmacist who is against contraception. He's working in a field that is fundamentally incompatible with magical thinking. Damn right I don't want him setting our national scientific priorities.

[Occam Bandage]

16. What would be wrong with either that physicist or that cosmologist?

I don't give a fuck whether they think God is somehow "behind" the equations and the data; I care whether they do good science. He does.

An Amish bus driver and an anti-contraception pharmacist both would refuse to do their jobs. This dude obviously has no problem with doing his job, given that he's been a major player in genetics research. A better analogy would be a bus driver who thinks the concept of the car was divinely inspired, or a pharmacist who thinks God wants him to heal people by giving them drugs in accordance with their legal prescriptions.

[jgraz]

23. What's wrong is that both "scientists" directly and fundamentally reject the scientific method

As does Collins. He's explicit in his statement that the bible contains first-hand accounts of the life of Jesus, even though it's been well-established that the earliest parts of the New Testament were written more than 70 years after the events they describe.

Collins may be fine as a project administrator (which is how he became a "major player"), but he has no business setting science policy for a nation.

[JayMusgrove]

29. That is because he is a strong believer in Christianity?

So are ALL followers of ALL religions immediately suspect in your book, and thus unable to lead?

Jeebus! This will be news to all believers.

[jgraz]

117. No, He's an anti-scientific proselytizer.

As much as I hate to promote the POS book he inflicted on the world, go read The Language of God. If you have any scientific training whatsoever, I doubt you'll be able to get through it without chucking the book across the room.

[Occam Bandage]

118. In between leading the fields of genetic research and scientific ethics, yes, he hates science. nt

[jgraz]

125. Yeah, he really does.

[kath]

332. He has NOT lead the fields of genetic research - he's been an administrative head of a division of

the NIH. Being an administrator and a good gladhander does not a brilliant scientist make...

[Occam Bandage]

30. In his personal beliefs, yes. Not in his work, as evidenced by his solid research on genetics.

Neither scientist would be "rejecting" the scientific method so long as their research abides by it. Scientists are not philosophers; what matters is what they produce and not what they think. Collins has shown a clear eagerness to perform good science; there's simply no evidence that his Christian beliefs contaminate his work.

I am friends with a doctor who is a devout Greek Orthodox. She believes Jesus truly did rise from the dead. And she also rejects absolutely any medical theories that do not conform to the evidence base, and accepts any medical theories that do. I wouldn't say she's a bad doctor or a dangerous doctor simply because she believes in things that are not medically possible, because those beliefs are kept apart from her work.

I think "Obama should bar all non-atheists from anything having to do with science" is a bit much.

[Seldona]

200. What?

'She believes Jesus truly did rise from the dead. And she also rejects absolutely any medical theories that do not conform to the evidence base, and accepts any medical theories that do.'

Those statements are simply irreconcilable.

[damonm]

215. "Those statements are simply irreconcilable"

No, they're not. Not even close.

[jgraz]

218. So reconcile them.

To do so you will have to show how someone can a) accept only medical theories that are based on evidence and b) accept that a human being can physically come back to life after being dead for three days.

Good luck with that.

[damonm]

238. I don't have to.

If you can't, that's not my problem.

[jgraz]

314. You don't *have* to do anything

You especially don't have to make any coherent sense whatsoever. Which is lucky for you.

[Seldona]

239. There is a medical theory supporting the resurrection of christ?

Fascinating.

[damonm]

258. There doesn't need to be.

It's theological - outside the scope of medicine.

[ibegurpard]

240. No they aren't

My father is a geologist
He knows the age of the earth...he knows dinosaurs walked the earth.
He also believes in the bible.
:shrug:

[KakistocracyHater]

196. plus the fact that NO archaelogical evidence was found

THAT is the most jarring fact-no Last Supper room, no Nazareth found, no actual Pharoah's names in the Old Testament, not a sliver found of Solomon's temple. Wow, that is Titanic to me, something should have been found. Plus, who knew what went on in that garden if everyone but Jesus was asleep?

[phleshdef]

266. Neither Einstein nor Stephen Hawkins were/are atheists.

You gonna talk shit about them too? Go ahead, I'd rather enjoy making yourself look more silly than you all ready have.

[PassingFair]

308. His name is HAWKING....

and neither he NOR Einstein "believe" or "believed"
in a "creator".

By many measurements they are considered atheist,
Deist AT BEST.

Neither one "worships" a god.

[JayMusgrove]

25. Wow, where did YOU get your PhD in a science?

I guess only agnostics and atheists can go to grad school now?

Tell me where you did your post doctoral studies.

I have never seen such arrogance from someone who probably didn't finish a class in human relations.

[jgraz]

46. Where did you get your PhD in straw men?

Or is your activity on DU part of your dissertation?

I refuse to play your little game of academic dick waving. Especially since you seem woefully... unequipped.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

185. University of Telluria.

Whiny Hysteria Studies.

He did a postdoc Liberty U.

[grantcart]

101. Name one area where you disagree with his science?

[jgraz]

115. I don't disagree with his science. I disagree with the superstition he pretends is science

For example, in his book, Collins promotes the idea that altruism is not explainable by science and thus must be evidence of the existence of God. The fact that there are decades of evolutionary research explaining altruism's role in natural selection is not just ignored by Collins, he flat-out denies its existence.

His "explanation" of the Big Bang is one of the many times I felt like throwing the book across the room (however, it was an audiobook playing on my laptop, so I just gritted my teeth and saved the $3000). Collins just comes out and says that there can ONLY be a divine explanation for the Big Bang. It seems he's either ignorant of or incapable of understanding the dozens of hypotheses proposed for the origin of the universe -- from quantum foam to M-theory to the Hart-Penrose theorems. All of these ideas are infinitely more interesting than a magical sky daddy waving his ethereal hand, but Collins doesn't even think they merit a mention.

[Zynx]

128. The theories around the creation of the universe are entirely irrelevant to nearly everything

particularly when it comes to medical research. That is literally about as relevant if he believes the price-elasticity of oil demand is .2 or .45. It doesn't matter.

[jgraz]

132. It would also be irrelevant if he was a raging homophobe

But you wouldn't want someone like that setting policy, either. In this case, he's an anti-scientific bigot who uses intellectual dishonesty to attack anyone who doesn't share his belief in the christian god.

[dionysus]

134. an acclaimed genetic scientist is and anti-scientific bigot? the fuck you are smoking?

[jgraz]

136. I'm "smoking" actual information about who this guy is

What the fuck are you smoking?

[damonm]

177. Umm...no.

You are using your own prejudices to argue that this man is something that any objective analysis shows he's NOT. You are, in essence, zooming in on one square inch of a Monet and assuming it accurately describes the entire painting.

But what has been made crystal clear here is your prejudice is that if someone is Christian, they automatically hate science - nothing could be further from the truth.

[jgraz]

201. Now be honest: had you heard of Francis Collins before today?

I've known about this guy for years. He's a creationist enabler and a pure bigot toward atheists. I never said he hates science because he's christian, I say he lies about science to justify his religious zealotry.

[damonm]

212. Yeah, actually I have...

And I cannot for one second accept your characterization of the man.

[jgraz]

219. Based on what evidence?

Since this is, at heart, a discussion about science, you should be able to provide some evidence that what Collins has said in his book and numerous interviews is not actually what he means.

Can you do that?

[damonm]

237. Nice try -

This is not and never has for one nanosecond been about science - it has been about his religious beliefs and your assertion that because of those beliefs he is anti-science in spite of his record of scientific achievement.
If he were, in your words, an "anti-scientific proselytizer", would he have recieved the Willam Allen award from the American Society of Human Genetics? Hardly. Would he favor embryonic stem-cell research? No.
Your assertions simply do not mesh with facts, and I have no more time to waste on this.

[jgraz]

272. My apologies.

I should have known asking you to back up any of your statements was a lost cause.

But, yes, you can be an anti-scientific proselytizer and believe all kinds of things. The only requirement is that you proselytize against science. Which Collins does. He advocates that religion and science be merged, which is fundamentally anti-scientific.

How would you react if Obama appointed a judge who believed in merging constitutional law with biblical law? Would you be cool with that if she had won a bunch of awards?

[Zynx]

139. I wouldn't want a bigot like Richard Dawkins in charge of the NIH either.

Also, I've read about Collins before. He is certainly not a bigot. I think you have the bizarre conclusion that all religious people must be bigots.

[jgraz]

144. Anyone who says atheism is "blind faith" is a bigot

Just as anyone who says homosexuality is a choice is a bigot.

Both are ignorant statements meant to demean a group of people.

[Egnever]

305. You paid 3k for a laptop?

LOL

[jgraz]

313. No, my employer did.

But I suspect they'd ask me to pay for it if I intentionally chucked it across the room.

Of course, all I'd have to do is play them a few passages from Collins' book and I bet they'd let it slide.

[Zynx]

127. So long as they properly observe the phenomena they study, what they believe is not

really that important.

[jgraz]

133. But he's not being hired as a researcher, he's being hired as the head of NIH

If he's going to be setting policy, I'd prefer it if he didn't believe that his magical sky daddy was responsible for anything we don't currently understand.

[Zynx]

142. He has never supported creationism nor intelligent design.

I think you really need to calm yourself down.

[jgraz]

143. Yes, he has. He just calls it "evolutionary creationism" or BioLogos

Same shit, different name. The fact that his faith allows for more scientifically proven processes doesn't make it any more appropriate as a scientific discipline.

[northernlights]

167. I hate to break this to you

but some of the greatest scientific minds of this century, as well as preceeding centuries, believe(d) in a God of some sort. Not necessarily an old man in the sky kind of God. But some kind of higher power.

And studying the universe scientifically -- and making major breakthroughs in our understanding of the world and the universe -- did not dissuade them from their beliefs.

Sorry, but I'll follow their lead over yours any day of the week.

[jgraz]

175. You are right. Collins shares many beliefs with people from preceding centuries

Which is exactly why he should be disqualified from bringing his neo-creationist religion to the NIH.

[northernlights]

274. including those of *some of the greatest scientists* from this and earlier

centuries.

Nice try. Ain't gonna fly. You misquoted me, and you know it. Because you *can't* argue with what I actually wrote. And you know it. }(

[northernlights]

249. not to mention...

"I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts. The rest are details." (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p.202)

[phleshdef]

264. Wow, I can't believe you are advocating job discrimination based on religion.

The facts speak for themselves. The guy is perfectly qualified for the specific position.

[CreekDog]

91. I'm glad you aren't president

i'm sure you would fire me from my job (science based) because of the church i attend.

[JayMusgrove]

93. WELL, as Original Poster would order this world...

just about the majority of people in the USA would be out of a job, if it has anything to do with "SCIENCE", since O P thinks belief in religion gets in the way of SCIENCE. Hence, no automobiles, no planes, no police, fire, teachers, no one in any of these jobs, and on and on and on, since all of these jobs have SOMETHING TO DO with science these days.

[COLGATE4]

9. You are absolutely right!

Collins is a brilliant scientist and a gifted politician (in the good sense of the word). He is reknowned for his work on decoding the human genome. The fact that he is a devout christian does not automatically translate into him being a 'flat eather'. He is universally respected and almost revered at University of Michigan Medical School.

[kath]

333. He did not do work on decoding the human genome - he was administrative head of that division of the

NIH.
And NOT universally respected. Not by a long shot.

[Beetwasher]

24. +1,000

:thumbsup:

[Ocracoker16]

33. Grantcart- thank you for telling the whole story

[vaberella]

48. Thanks. Great post. n/t

[GreenPartyVoter]

107. Thanks for pulling out all that info. It's all good to know.

[earth mom]

109. Fundie whack jobs don't belong in government jobs. This is a SECULAR nation.

:puke:

[Zynx]

129. So we need to apply a religious test for all civil service positions?

I'm glad to see 17th century England is still alive and well.

[jgraz]

145. No, you just need to not appoint stealth religious bigots to scientific posts

Is that such a hard restriction to live with?

[jesus_of_suburbia]

180. Thanks grantcart! I have no problem with Christians who are compassionate and logical.

Seems like your links point to this guy as being both!

[rucky]

338. Thank you, Mr. Cart!

I've had that book sitting by the crapper for months. I think I'll finally give it a read!

[spoony]

3. I don't see how those beliefs conflict with the NIH job

I mean, if he was on about relying on faith-healing or exorcisms or something there'd be cause for concern, but these are fairly mainstream beliefs.

[jgraz]

7. Collins believes our sense of morality is a gift from God

One of hottest topics in evolutionary biology is the development of moral and emotional processing. It has the potential to find new treatments for many psychological disorders, including sociopathy.

How likely is it that Collins will support studies that threaten this core belief of his?


He's also just scarily out-of-touch with the established history of the Bible. If he thinks that the New Testament actually contains "first-hand accounts", what other facts is he ignoring?

[JayMusgrove]

43. You speak as though you have read all of his work, know ALL of his

positions, and are firmly may I say "devoutly" convinced that Christian believers cannot be sound scientific program leaders.

To YOU, the two concepts are irreconcilable?..., belief in a human code of morality somehow transcending genetics, and belief in the boundless joy and adventure of unbiased scientific research and inquiry? The two CANNOT coexist in your world?

That's a pretty "absolutist" position, IMO. Not someone I want to be judging my "worth" and "appropriateness" as a scientist, musician, teacher, philosopher, or even as a DU poster.

[jgraz]

57. Ah, more straw men. You'll get your degree in no time

In the meantime, please refrain from commenting on anything that you haven't received a PhD in, or where you haven't assembled an exhaustive knowledge of every available piece of information.

And YES, the two concepts are fundamentally irreconcilable, just as a working geologist cannot reconcile a belief in the literal creation myth. Morality is a BIOLOGICAL artifact. If you don't accept that, you have no business working in biology.

[dionysus]

61. you're cranky. i guess this attempted poutrage-fest isn't working out like you planned...

:rofl:
to the gnashmobile!!11!1!!

[jgraz]

73. It's working out pretty much like I expected.

Too many cheerleaders with too much time on their hands. Now that you guys have the ultimate weapon, I expect you'll be descending on all critical posts like swarms of locusts.

Democratic with a capital DLC.

[dionysus]

76. when pwned, attempting to play the "i'm a better democrat than you" card, eh?

you can't take it that there's only a small handful of perpetually negative, constantly crying "purists" here, can you?

[jgraz]

81. Than you? No "card" is needed

Your might-makes-right attitude establishes that fact for me, thank you very much.

[dionysus]

83. obviously, you have taken getting destroyed on this thread personally...

:rofl:

[jgraz]

111. No, I find the flat-out ignorance of Collins and his agenda depressing

This is another of Obama's wolves in sheep's clothing. Collins doesn't just believe in God; he uses his position as a scientist to promote an agenda of superstition and anti-atheist bigotry.

[Occam Bandage]

113. It's kind of funny to watch you call the director of the Human Genome Project "ignorant."

About the history of the Bible? Sure. About science? lol.

[dionysus]

135. dude, instead of climbing out of the hole, he's digging that mofo deeper and deeper...

[jgraz]

137. Poor wording. I wasn't calling him ignorant. I was calling you ignorant.

Collins is just someone who wants you to *stay* ignorant.

[damonm]

182. OK...

you say "flat-out ignorance of Collins and his agenda", and then claim you weren't calling Collins ignorant.
Can you contradict yourself any more flatly?
jgraz, give it up. You're smarter than this.

[jgraz]

193. There are two ways to read that.

1. (the flat-out ignorance of Collins) (and his agenda)

and

2. (the flat-out ignorance) (of Collins and his agenda) : in other words, the fact that people on this thread are ignorant of Collins and his agenda

While I'll freely admit that the wording is a bit inelegant, inclusion of the phrase "and his agenda" makes the meaning clear. How would it makes sense to say an agenda is "ignorant"? Clearly I'm talking about DU's lack of knowledge about both Collins and his agenda

For the record, I do NOT think that Collins is ignorant. I think he's a lying sonofabitch who has no business being involved in the policy decisions of a secular government.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

79. The "ultimate weapon" is one vote against putting a thread on the Greatest Page?

This vote does not make the thread disappear, and it does not bury the thread on the 30th page. All it affects is the Greatest Page.

[dionysus]

80. why do you stifle dissent, you hopestepping dlc thug?

:spray:

[Occam Bandage]

90. This thread is now very unlikely to get on the Greatest page! Do you feel the power?!

DLC POWER!

[SemiCharmedQuark]

140. It's because of that Ayatollah Skinner and his determination to crush all dissent.

Maybe there shall be tweets about it from the front lines.

[SpartanDem]

87. Why because we don't condone your bigotry

[jgraz]

102. something you disagree with == bigotry?

I have no problem with scientist who happen to be religious. But this is a guy who used his scientific credentials to push a religious agenda. Do you see the difference? (I'm guessing no)

[Occam Bandage]

103. He "pushed a religious agenda" by writing a book saying that science and religion are compatible.

That's hardly a bad thing, especially given that the "conversion" he's most likely to accomplish by such a thing is convincing fellow Christians that science does not threaten Christianity, and that a Christian can and should support increased scientific research (even in the often-controversial field of genetics).

[jgraz]

106. Have you read the book? It doesn't really say that

What it says is that, for the tough questions, we should abandon science and look to God. He proposes a new form of evolutionary creationism that basically says that God is responsible for the existence and evolution of life.

Again, the presence and relative prevalence of life is one of the biggest questions facing science today. For a prominent geneticist to simply throw up his hands and say God Did It is discouraging to say the least.

The most dishonest part of the book is Collins treatment of altruism. He asserts that altruism itself is compelling evidence for the existence of God, even though there are decades' worth of evolutionary theory explaining how altruism is a perfectly ordinary mechanism of natural selection (e.g. kin selection). Such promotion of ignorance is inexcusable for a so-called "scientist" -- especially a biologist.

[Occam Bandage]

112. I've not been able to find anything by him suggesting we shouldn't perform any sort of research.

Indeed, he seems pretty convinced that scientific research continues to prove the existence of God to him. That sounds like someone who wants more scientific research, not somebody who says we should "abandon science." There's no evidence of a desire to abandon science in his career, either.

There's a difference between saying, "I see the handiwork of God in this, let's do even more research so we can get a better look" and saying "Fuck science, God did everything." Collins appears to be the former. I'm not sure whether it's anti-Christian bigotry or your rampant Obamaphobia that's causing you to try to represent him as the latter, but I'm not seeing any evidence for that interpretation.

[jgraz]

121. He goes even farther. He denies the existence of research that doesn't support his religion

The fact is that scientific research continues to DESTROY the concept of God. The only way that Collins can deny that is to deny the science that conflicts with his beliefs.

He also refuses to accept one of the most important tenets of the scientific method: when there is no evidence of a cause, that means you do not know how an event happened. Real scientist admit this. Collins turns to God.

If that wasn't enough, Collins is also a pure anti-atheist bigot. He condemns atheism as "irrational" and "blind faith". He says it cannot be defended by reason.

Damn, you guys are gonna make me go back and read that book again, aren't you? :puke:

[JayMusgrove]

84. You researched and found out I only hold two master's degrees and

YOU, oh wise one, are so much more educated than I am, because you have OPINIONS, that trump each and every person out there.

WRONG... I am in my last year on my SECOND post doc research fellowship. YOU, oh wise one, never met a Christian you didn't have a prejudice against before you ever got to know him or her. Thank Jeebus, you are not in public office.

[jgraz]

124. I know you're completely ignorant of Collins' views of science and religion

How many degrees does one need to be immune from not knowing shit on a subject? Apparently more than you have.

[ProSense]

186. Wow

BS with stamina

:rofl:

[HamdenRice]

120. You fundamentally don't understand what an account is

Even if the NT was written down some time after the events, that doesn't mean that the account was established contemporaneously with the events, as oral history or memory.

You're the one with the bizarre ideas, not the doctor.

[jgraz]

194. I'm pretty sure I know what an "eyewitness account" is

I'm pretty sure Collins knows what it is as well. However, he's chosen to lie about it to further his religious agenda.

[olegramps]

243. While the Gospels were written some years after His death, you seem to neglect Paul.

Paul knew his brother James and conversed with Jesus' disciples. Although he hadn't met Jesus, he came as close as anyone in being able to testify as to his teachings. Many myths certainly made their way into the Gospels, but they don't detract from Jesus basic teachings which were not revolutionary, but admonished the Jewish people to re embrace the most important aspects of their beliefs.

[jgraz]

250. And still not an eyewitness account

Though a great source for sexism and hatred of gays.

Let's look, again, at Collins' interview with Bill Maher: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyWYpdCpF6M

Collins: When I read the New Testament it reads to me as the record of eyewitness who put down what they saw.

Maher: You know they weren't eyewitnesses.

Collins: They were close to that.

Maher: No.

Collins: They were within a couple of decades of eyewitnesses.

Does that strike you as someone interested in an honest exchange of ideas?

[dionysus]

8. lookin like a poutrage fail to me...

:shrug:

[jgraz]

11. Only if you want a superstitious zealot setting our national scientific priorities.

The man is an enabler for creationists and global warming deniers. I don't want him anywhere near a federal science post.

[JayMusgrove]

55. Now he's a superstitious zealot?

What links do you have to prove that he's superstitious, and intolerant of other's beliefs and positions?

Surely you have something CONCRETE, PUBLISHED, SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN to back up your claim, other than your own highly "opinionated" viewpoint.

[jgraz]

67. Not just now.

He's someone who insists, against all factual evidence, that the New Testament is a first-hand account. He believes established biological functions are the direct result of magic.

In my government, the one that I'm paying for, I do not want people who believe such things setting science policy. Just as I don't want a rancher heading the Dept of Interior or a Monsanto lobbyist at the FDA.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

288. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[babylonsister]

12. Why are you here? You obviously abhor all things Obama.

Why waste your time and ours?

Edit to add: I did forget that ignore function, so you won't be wasting my time any longer. :)

[Occam Bandage]

13. I know you like to bash everything Obama does, but this is a stretch.

"Sure, the dude's a preeminent scientist, but he also believes in God!!!!!"

[jgraz]

14. Have you read any of his writings?

Go check them out. I'm sure you'll find plenty of links to him on creationist sites.

[Occam Bandage]

18. Do you have any links to counterfactual/creationist beliefs of his?

I don't mean things like "I bet that God set it up behind the scenes;" Newton thought that. I mean statements that are outright contrary to scientific knowledge.

[jgraz]

32. He believes the New Testament is a first-hand account

As stated in the article. He's also a prominent promoter of the God of the Gaps belief, where anything not currently explained by science is attributed to the all-powerful sky daddy.

[Occam Bandage]

39. Which has nothing to do with science.

He's not a historian or a Biblical scholar. As for God of the Gaps? He's a believer of a positive variant of it: "God is in the gaps, so we should research the gaps with good, empirical science, and maybe we'll find him." I don't really mind if he wants to set the right priorities for the wrong reasons.

[jgraz]

151. I missed the /creationist bit. Collins is an avowed creationist.

He just uses a fancy name: BioLogos. But it means the same thing.

[damonm]

184. If you think BioLogos=creationism,

you plainly understand neither.

[jgraz]

188. That's why it's called "evolutionary creationism". Cuz it's not creationism.

:eyes:

[damonm]

191. Actually,

it's "theistic evolution", and holds the quite reasonable proposition that the fact of evolution does not necessarily exclude a deity.
:eyes: Right back atcha.

[jgraz]

192. That is NOT what Collins believes. He expressly differentiates his views from "theistic evolution"

Collins views are not that "evolution does not necessarily exclude a deity". He states categorically that the origin of the universe, abiogenesis and human morality CAN ONLY BE the result of direct intervention by a supreme being. No "not necessarily" about it.

The fact that each of these beliefs is directly contradicted by established scientific evidence makes him as much of a creationist as the Answers in Genesis folks. He just has a bit more fancy scientific language to hide behind.

[madfloridian]

15. Looks like the unrecommend will be used to squelch criticism

or questioning of the president.

I don't think that was the purpose.

[jgraz]

17. As predicted

The apologists are far more zealous and, apparently, have far more time on their hands. Look for an all cheerleading, all the time Greatest Page.

[Occam Bandage]

19. As predicted, the vocal minority will complain at being exposed as such. nt

[dionysus]

21. you hopestepper.

;)

[vaberella]

36. +1. n/t

[dionysus]

20. no, there just not enough bitter complainers to rec something to the greatest page because

people who actually like the president vastly outnumber you.
:shrug:

[Occam Bandage]

22. Exactly right. The problem was that the minority of bitter folks were hyperactive reccers,

leading to anything they posted getting recced up, while the positive posts weren't. Now that the majority can easily say, "nah, you don't speak for us," it's expected that the minority would complain.

[jgraz]

26. Awesome. You finally got the little club you always wanted

No critical thinking allowed.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

28. Your post not being on the greatest page = no critical thinking allowed?

Really?

[jgraz]

35. No critical posts being on the GP == no critical thinking allowed.

Not just mine. All of them. The cheerleaders are out in force and now they're armed.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

40. Why does the GP determine this? Anyone actually going in the forums can view any thread they want.

There is no stifling of critical thinking.

And of course there are "cheerleaders" for the Democratic president on a Democratic messageboard.

[Occam Bandage]

51. "critical thinking" != "critical posts."

It's ironic that you're complaining about "no critical thinking allowed," when all that's happened is that people can now treat posts on DU critically as well as positively.

[Beetwasher]

56. No More Critical Thinking=Trolls Can No Longer Pile Up The Recommends

To get their flamebait, crap skyrocketed to #1 on the greatest by emailing every idiot they know to go over to DU and recommend their steaming pile of crap.

No critical thinking means "it's no fair!! I can't game the system anymore!! Wahhh!"

[Occam Bandage]

58. Right. They're upset that we can now engage in critical thought on their piles of shit.

The Greatest page is now for the threads DU likes on balance, and not for the threads that get the highest number of cheerleaders end of story. It's ironic that some are claiming that represents an end to critical thought.

[Beetwasher]

60. It's Actual Democracy!

I wonder why they hate it?

[jgraz]

75. With a capital D-L-C

Enjoy yourselves.

[dionysus]

77. yes, DU is run by the DLC..... keep trying...

:rofl:

maybe you should get all 2 dozen of you to run around unreccing positive threads about dems as revenge...

[Beetwasher]

78. LOL!!!!! Wahhhhhhhhhh!!!!

Why is it the only one's whining are those posters who are well known for constantly posting gigantic loads of splendiferous crap? :rofl:

[Occam Bandage]

86. It's bad that DUers can vote up/down on threads because we don't think the right way.

Which means we're DLC. Which means your hissy fit has just gone nuclear.

If the voting system were designed to embarrass minority opinions, it would show the total in the negative as well as the positive, like Digg and Reddit do. If it was designed to run them off the site, it would auto-hide negative threads/posts, like Digg does. It's pretty clearly just designed to ensure the Greatest posts are representative of what the majority of DUers think is deserving (as opposed to what a few committed obsessives want).

[dionysus]

34. no, see, our club *dwarfs* your club. most DUers don't post in these ridiculous threads

because they don't bother wasting time arguing with people who apparently don't like democrats.

[Occam Bandage]

45. No, see, you were the one with the mindless little club.

Skinner just let everyone else say, "hey, wait a minute, that makes no sense whatsoever." This attack thread is absolute nonsense; in order to approve of it, one would have to let their hatred of Obama suspend their thought processes long enough for them to accept the inane belief that nobody who believes in the non-scientific concept of a God is capable of being a scientist.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mojambo]

98. Yep. What a horrible idea.

I'm kind of surprised that it was implemented.

[Zynx]

131. It can be used judiciously to shoot down useless criticism that is poorly considered.

[jgraz]

190. Yeah, I'm sure that's exactly how it's going to be used

:eyes:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

181. How deeply ironic.

Why are you trying to squelch criticism?

[FiveGoodMen]

183. "I don't think that was the purpose"

I wonder.

[scheming daemons]

31. I predict that the OP is not going to like the unrec feature in DU very much

[madfloridian]

37. None of us should like it if it is used to stop criticism

of the president or his actions.

[dionysus]

41. mad, cannot you see the difference between valid criticism and this steaming pile of OP?

[madfloridian]

47. Don't you see? You can just ignore posts you don't like

Some really are over the top, and are obviously made by people here to get a reaction.

Some are bringing out a valid point, just fall short of the mark.

I post a lot about the emphasis on religion in this administration and in the GOP...it worries me.

I don't have an opinion on this post because I don't know the person mentioned and have not researched it.

But the unrecs were so quick. That tells me something.

[scheming daemons]

52. You have always been able to ignore the posts you don't like

We've always had the ignore feature and hide-thread feature.

[dionysus]

54. well, to tell you the truth, i don't even use the greatest page. i suspect most people go straight

to the forums anyways, where all the threads are visible.

[madfloridian]

64. I seldom go to the greatest page....I seldom get on it either.

I have mine set to the Latest page.

[Occam Bandage]

71. Then you shouldn't really have a problem with a system that only affects the Greatest page. nt

[vaberella]

66. Just like we can Rec we can Unrec. I don't see the big deal.

You can do this on YouTube. You could always ignore the video but you can always rate at a 1 or rate it up to 5.

I don't see how this is stifling anything. This is not about liking a post, but if the post is pushing a rather prejudiced meme, then I'd take issue with it and I'd like to unrec it. What the OP suggested is that because of the person's religious background it makes them unqualified for a position.

How in the hell do you justify that? Why should I ignore it, when I find that kind of thought is unqualified. Obama is religious and based on the implication made, Obama or HRC or anyone of some religious background that may have qualifications otherwise, would be disqualified if the OP feels it undermines "his said profession". ie. Religion sets the ground work that one believes that if you are gay you are in some way a sinner. That would automatically black list all Christian, Islamic, and Muslim public officials for holding high office. When the person themselves may believe in God but may not agree with that direction or have different views.

The profession, and the person at times can be very separate things. However, the OP stated in one post it should disqualify him from the post. Oy.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

It's not stopping criticism. If it has 1000 unrecommends, it still doesn't disappear. It just

does not appear on the greatest page.

[vaberella]

44. End of Story...however the poster seems to like buliding some DRA-MA. n/t

[vaberella]

42. How does it stop criticism?

The poster is still posting. The thread is still active and on the site. So, I find your claim, utterly unfounded. You think it will do that because it has unrec marks----which is the silliest thing I've heard.

[scheming daemons]

49. How does calling a pile a shit a pile of shit STOP the criticism? Nothing is being censored....

...just properly labelled.

[Occam Bandage]

53. Holding an open up/down vote on whether things belong on the greatest is not "stopping criticism."

[BlooInBloo]

62. But criticism of YOU should be forbidden. You people are all for censorship - of your critics.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[madfloridian]

65. Who are referring to...me? "you people"

[Occam Bandage]

68. "You people?" Obviously you are a racist. nt

[BlooInBloo]

69. (shrug) I keep offering to replace that with "you whiny ass titty babies"....

But no-one ever takes me up on it. I don't know what they want from me.

[Occam Bandage]

70. Some of my best friends are whiny-ass titty babies.

Or was that whiny ass-titty babies? I can never remember where the hyphens go...

[BlooInBloo]

72. I suspect it's a tomato-tomato sort of difference. :)

[grantcart]

100. The methodology used by the OP in this instance is exactly like FOX News

The OP has found no policy reason to criticise the appointment and so goes to the source and takes only the most inflammatory information against his person belief system.


Not fair not balanced and not correct.


If a poster had done this against somebody because of their sexual identity or if they were a Muslim or Buddhist or Marxist they would be roundly criticized.

Here at DU you can stretch any truth to bring any lie to impugn anyone who might be charachterized as 'evangelistic', even if they support liberal policies, scientific research and reasoned debate.

That is the reason that people reacted to this highly bigoted OP.


I am just surprised that some support this kind of bigotry.

[jgraz]

130. Again, you're arguing from a position of abject ignorance

Until you looked up Collins on Wikipedia, you had no idea who he was. This is not just someone who happens to be religious. This is one of the leading voices of so-called "scientific" creationism. He's a champion of ignorance and magical thinking and he has no business setting policy for a national scientific institute.

[vaberella]

38. I don't think many will. n/t

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FrenchieCat]

59. So full of shit, so little time!

[dionysus]

63. ...

:spray:

[jgraz]

123. Aw, Frenchie

It's hard to open a book when you're holding those pompons, isn't it? However, you might try reading the anti-scientific screed written by our new head of NIH.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Language_of_God:_A_Scientist_Presents_Evidence_for_Belief

Unless you've already read it, in which case your reaction won't seem quite as ignorant and ill-informed as it does at present.

[zulchzulu]

85. "leading pioneer in human genome research"...

God forbid, no pun intended...

[kath]

329. Actually, he didn't DO any genome research - he was just head of that section at the NIH,

and didn't manage it particularly well, from what I've heard.

[JayMusgrove]

88. THE MOST UNRECOMMENDED thread of all time. Funny thing about history..

Christians once believed the sun and all the stars revolved around the world, that the Earth was flat, that you could cure illness by blood-letting.

SCIENCE got in the way of all those Christian beliefs, and MOST OF THE SCIENTISTS were believers in a god, (no, not all Christians, but a fair number were and still are).

Funny thing about that Christian religion stuff, it adapts and grows better, more humane and tolerant, whenever that damned SCIENCE comes up with proof that the previous beliefs were WRONG!!!

So, intolerant, original poster, stick that in your pipe and suck in.

[vaberella]

89. +1. n/t

[jgraz]

122. Until the next thread critical of Obama comes up

Then the locusts will swarm over that one.


Until you actually pick up and read Collins' book, you're just parading your ignorance. And unrec's or not, you're going to end up looking like a fool.

[dionysus]

141. i think you've covered looking like a fool enough for everyone on this thread today....

[jgraz]

146. Just cuz you say it doesn't make it true

A key point of intellectual development that most people reach by the age of five. When do you plan on getting there?

[dionysus]

147. judging by the fact that all you have left are personal insults, i think you're almost out of gas.

better luck next whine..er time..

[jgraz]

148. When you say something of substance, I'll respond in kind

I'm waiting...

[JayMusgrove]

197. I will do the same for you.......but only if you

redeem yourself for your intolerant beliefs about any other human being, who disagrees with you.

In other words, I doubt you will ever redeem yourself as a tolerant human being, you only deal in absolutes, which is what Hitler dealt in, as I recall.

You also appear to be a person who has not read a decent book about religion and science in your lifetime, Oh I'm sure you have more important things to do. Cliff notes on the history of the world seem to satisfy you as legitimate education.

Pity.

[jgraz]

199. Congratulations on Godwinning yourself out of rational conversation

Now take your little degrees and run along home.

[CreekDog]

92. Unlike you, I read Francis Collins' book

he actually takes issue with the young earthers, the intelligent design folks and his beliefs with respect to the bible and creation are very hard to pigeon hole.

with respect to science, his appointment by Clinton and his work are steller.

all that said, he simply adds to his work that he believes on a personal level, not as a scientific tenet, that there is a God and to that end, he considers himself a Christian.

maybe i'm naive, but i thought we allowed that in our country.

you would have him blacklisted from his field of work.

maybe you can defend how well that worked when it was applied to Jewish people.

:rant::

[JayMusgrove]

94. Great post! Tolerance for religious believers, we DO allow this in

our country. Last I checked, only Germany made rules about that in recent history, we know how that turned out.

[SpartanDem]

96. Not only do we allow it, but given how OP's intolerant rantings were smacked down

most of us believe in it too.

[JayMusgrove]

97. Well, even SOME agnostics and atheists I know are more tolerant than the OP!

[Occam Bandage]

104. I don't think I know anyone who would claim

that a person should be barred from a job because of their religious beliefs, even if those beliefs do not in any way conflict with their willingness or ability to perform their duties.

[jgraz]

162. And I have claimed no such thing

He should be barred from the job because of his *scientific* beliefs.

[JayMusgrove]

195. His Scientific "beliefs" Isn't that a contradiction in terms?

I don't know if you are serious or satirical.

I have no "scientific" beliefs. I have a belief in science as the way to advance humanity.

You disagree?

[jgraz]

198. Not to Collins.

Which is exactly my point.

[vaberella]

99. +1. n/t

[jgraz]

108. I've read his book. I found it ridiculous and intellectually dishonest.

Tell me, what did you think of his assertions about altruism? Assuming you weren't previously familiar with evolutionary theory on altruism. I'm interested in what impression you came away with.

[yellowcanine]

95. Dr. Collins did a fantastic job with the human genome project. I don't care what his opinion on the

New Testament is, frankly.

[Vidar]

105. So a brilliant scientist finds a way to reconcile science with his religious beliefs.

Good choice by Obama.

[jgraz]

110. No, a brilliant scientist uses his position to proselytize his own anti-scientific ideology

Believing in God is one thing. Pushing your own magical thinking -- especially when you have the stone to call it "science" -- is quite another.

[Occam Bandage]

114. Claiming a world-renowned scientist has an "anti-scientific ideology" is silly, jgraz. nt

[jgraz]

116. Have you read his book?

It's nothing but a bunch of ignorant, anti-scientific bigotry wrapped up in some semi-technical language.

Really, go read his book. I guarantee you'll be appalled.

[Occam Bandage]

119. I think I've had enough ignorant bigotry for one afternoon, but thanks for the suggestion. nt

[jgraz]

126. You may wish to look up the words "ignorant" and "bigotry"

I've known about Collins for years. You just heard of him today. Yet, somehow, my view is the ignorant and bigoted one. :eyes:

[Zynx]

138. It does not seem that his religious views have impeded his ability to produce

important research. He probably contributes more to medical science in a single day than you have ever contributed or will ever contribute.

You are singling out personal viewpoints and seeking to discredit a man who has unquestionable and great achievement in his field.

[jgraz]

149. Then let him continue his research. Just keep him away from policy.

His research has certainly been important, but his popular writings have been incredibly damaging to the understanding of science.

[kath]

331. Just because he's been the **administrative** head of a division of the NIH doesn't mean that he's

produced important research. Nor does it mean that he has "unquestionable and great achievement in his field".

[ChazII]

204. While I have never met the man

he IS responsible for helping my son and myself through his research regarding neurofibromatosis. His breakthroughs have helped thousands and while that is a small number, when you are one of those thousands -- it matters.

[jgraz]

209. I'm glad he helped you and your son

However, his work would not have been possible were it not for the discoveries of Dr. James Watson, one of the two (well, three, really) people who discovered the structure of DNA.

It just so happens that Watson is a virulent racist who thinks that black people are genetically inferior to whites. Do you think Watson should be appointed to a policy-making position based on his scientific achievements alone?

[incapsulated]

150. This is more stupid than my locked Micheal Jackson thread

And we can throw that loon Issac Newton under the bus too, and he can take his gravity, optics and mechanics with him!

[jgraz]

152. Isaac Newton was also a deep believer in alchemy and astrology

I wouldn't want Newton setting modern scientific priorities, either.

[incapsulated]

153. That's right, he did

He was also possibly the greatest scientist of the last few centuries.

I sincerely hope you do not believe that this man is going to, simply because he is a person of faith, undermine the NIH, absolutely NOTHING justifies this assumption other than the fact that you disagree with his religious beliefs and that, my friend, *is* bigotry.

[jgraz]

155. Except I haven't said that he's disqualified because he's merely a "person of faith"

He's disqualified because he's an anti-scientific charlatan and a promoter of anti-atheist bigotry.

I didn't choose to make Collins' faith an issue. He did.

[incapsulated]

161. That is simply rubbish

And nothing you have posted backs it up.

You are prejudiced to the point of illogic on this.

[whistler162]

164. Just the opposite.. the article from Pew Research

shows that Dr. Collins is a good choice for the position.

[jgraz]

165. You seem to have missed some of my posts.

Let me refresh you:

Collins believes that atheists are "irrational" practitioners of "blind faith".

Collins asserts that only a supernatural origin can explain the Big Bang.

Collins (a trained biologist, no less) dishonestly states that evolutionary theory cannot account for altruism.


These are not just casual beliefs of his. He put these all in his book, The Language of God, and has reiterated them in numerous interviews.


And if that's not enough, Collins is an avowed creationist. He gives it a different name (BioLogos), but it's basically another version of intelligent design.

[northernlights]

251. ruh-roh Collins believes that atheists are "irrational" practitioners of "blind faith".

"Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source . . . They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres." (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p. 214)

[Vidar]

156. And look at all the harm to science he did.

[jgraz]

157. Advancing science does not automatically qualify someone to head a government institute

Edward Teller was also a brilliant scientist. Would you want him in charge of our nuclear policy?

[jgraz]

154. Oh damn, I forgot my favorite bit about Collins

Where he says that the Church's persecution of Galileo was the fault of ... wait for it ... GALILEO!

First of all, let's look carefully at the history of conflicts between science and the church and be sure that those are adequately represented. The story of Galileo is an interesting one. But I think it might be fair to say that Galileo's greatest mistake was being a bit arrogant in the way he presented his own views and insulting the pope who, prior to that, had been fairly sympathetic with Galileo's conclusions. Basically the pope couldn't let Galileo get away with this kind of insult.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/805/the-evidence-for-belief-an-interview-with-francis-collins

So, no worries that the Church set back scientific progress for centuries. What really matters is that Galileo was kind of a dick.

[incapsulated]

159. But it's *true*

The Pope believed he was being deliberately *ridiculed* in Dialogue. He was, in fact, *sympathetic* to Galileo and was the worst person to piss off, given Galileo's position, and he lost many supporters because of those writings. And because of this he was tried for heresy.

Some believe it was a foolish thing to do and others think he was misunderstood, thinking the former does not mean "Galileo should have been burned at the stake".

[LWolf]

158. Has he appointed anyone who is

NOT a dlc/centrist/corporatist/3rd way democrat yet?

[jgraz]

160. That wouldn't be bipartisan, now would it?

:banghead:

[LWolf]

163. The purging of the left is almost complete.

Wonder how he'll campaign in '12.

[and-justice-for-all]

166. ‘Evangelistic’ scientist??

Two words that should never be used in a sentence.

and ABSOLUTELY HELL NO on this clown; could he not find a real Scientist for this job?! what the fuck.

PS: This guy is a creationist in disguise.

[incapsulated]

169. Yeah, he was only the head of National Human Genome Research Institute

What a clown.

[and-justice-for-all]

171. I know who he is smart ass....

and his "born-again" bullshit is the issue.

He is a religious clown, who will distort real scientific data to his religious notions.

[keepCAblue]

168. Religulous: Bill Maher interviews Francis Collins...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyWYpdCpF6M

[jgraz]

173. A good primer on Collins' intellectual dishonesty

Collins: When I read the New Testament it reads to me as the record of eyewitness who put down what they saw.

Maher: You know they weren't eyewitnesses.

Collins: They were close to that.

Maher: No.

Collins: They were within a couple of decades of eyewitnesses.

:crazy:

[ihavenobias]

176. Excellent link. n/t

[ProudDad]

178. Good one ---

Eye witnesses -- 400 years after the fact they "write it down"...?

And they don't match...

Funny...:rofl:

"faith" seems to be the result of rogue synapses connected by irrational childhood influences...not to be trusted...

[northernlights]

170. Einstein was an absolute idjit too

We can throw out relativity, special relativity, and everything we've done since Einstein. He didn't just believe in the science trilogy energy=matter=light. He believed in some stupid old man in the skynamed God. And he said his God didn't gamble, either. No dice roller, that God. Magical thinking and all that rot. :eyes:

[and-justice-for-all]

172. Einstein used it as a mataphore...nothing more...nt

[northernlights]

248. I'm not sure what a "mataphore" is

but if you meant metaphor, I'd have to ask metaphor for what?

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."
(Albert Einstein, responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein who had sent Einstein a cablegram bluntly demanding "Do you believe in God?" Quoted from Victor J. Stenger, Has Science Found God? 2001, chapter 3.)

[jgraz]

174. I think you may be confused as to who the "absolute idjit" is

From where I sit, only an "absolute idjit" would think Albert Einstein believed in a personal god.

[northernlights]

247. not believing in a "personal" god does not equate to atheism

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."
(Albert Einstein, responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein who had sent Einstein a cablegram bluntly demanding "Do you believe in God?" Quoted from Victor J. Stenger, Has Science Found God? 2001, chapter 3.)


"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being. (Albert Einstein)

In other words, grow up, mr. professional atheist :)

(bf mine)

[jgraz]

252. Never said it did.

I was responding to a poster who said Einstein believed in "some stupid old man in the sky named God".

I'm pretty sure that not believing in a "personal" god actually DOES equate to not believing in a personal god.

[northernlights]

256. ok, stupid and old are off

But he does refer to god as a *he* and repeatedly refers to a religion of the "cosmos." So man in sky god comes close.

"But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. (Albert Einstein, 1941)

[jgraz]

260. NO. You really need to read some of Einstein's writings

He explicitly DOES NOT believe in a man in the sky. This comes up all the time and it is pure slander against his views.

And, please, for the love of all that is good and pure, please stop pasting in quotes that you don't understand.

[northernlights]

276. for the love of all that is pure and good...and for the love of god, you asked for it

BWAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!

Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source . . . They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p. 214)

In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support for such views. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, p. 214)

What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos. (Albert Einstein to Joseph Lewis, Apr. 18, 1953)

But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. (Albert Einstein, 1941)



"The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness."
( Albert Einstein - The Merging of Spirit and Science)


"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.
(Albert Einstein, responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein who had sent Einstein a cablegram bluntly demanding "Do you believe in God?" Quoted from Victor J. Stenger, Has Science Found God? 2001, chapter 3.)

One strength of the Communist system ... is that it has some of the characteristics of a religion and inspires the emotions of a religion.
(Albert Einstein, Out Of My Later Years, 1950)

I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being. (Albert Einstein)


I see a pattern, but my imagination cannot picture the maker of that pattern. I see a clock, but I cannot envision the clockmaker. The human mind is unable to conceive of the four dimensions, so how can it conceive of a God, before whom a thousand years and a thousand dimensions are as one? (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p. 208)

We know nothing about at all. All our knowledge is but the knowledge of schoolchildren. Possibly we shall know a little more than we do now. but the real nature of things, that we shall never know, never. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, Page 208)

[ProSense]

277. This post wins the award for X-treme Smack Down n/t

[jgraz]

298. You've never read a single book on Einstein or Spinoza, have you?

The question at hand isn't whether Einstein was in favor of atheism as he defined it, but whether he believed in a personal god. If you know anything about Spinoza, you know that he was excommunicated by the Dutch Jewish community and "cursed" as an atheist.

Anyone who has even a passing familiarity with Spinoza's views knows that his religious philosophy is most commonly described as "pantheism". Here's what the all-knowing Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism">has to say about pantheism:

Pantheism (Greek: πάν (pan) = all and θεός (theos) = God, literally "God is all" -ism) is the view that everything is part of an all-encompassing immanent God. This view is not considered a form of theism and is considered philosophically indistinguishable from atheism. In pantheism, the Universe (Nature) and God are considered equivalent and synonymous. More detailed definitions tend to emphasize the idea that God is better understood as an abstract principle representing natural law, existence, and the Universe (the sum total of all that was, is and shall be), rather than as an anthropomorphic entity.

If you actually read a book about Einstein (or better yet, a book BY Einstein), you'll see that the "man in the sky" is about as far from his religious views as one can possibly get. You might want to start http://www.amazon.com/Ideas-Opinions-Albert-Einstein/dp/0517003937">here.


But congratulations. Your continual pasting of out-of-context, poorly understood quotations HAS, in fact, confirmed one of my favorite Einstein quotations:

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.

-- Albert Einstein

Cheers. :hi:

[northernlights]

323. actually I've read a few books about Einstein

or rather relativity and special relativity. No Spinoza, it's true.

I have a pretty decent understanding of the nature of Einstein's beliefs (which are actually pretty much my own).

I find it funny that you've carefully zeroed in on the facetious exaggeration of a single post, while ignoring the long list of Einstein quotes excoriating fanatic atheists as well as fanatic religious zealots.

The question has not been all about a "personal god" versus a more generalized version of god.

It has been about atheism versus belief in some sort of god versus religious fundamentalism. At least, that's the way it seems to me.

Regarding the infinite nature of human stupidity, I suggest you take a look in the mirror. Also the message that still hasn't sunk in, about how fanatic atheism and fanatic religious zealotry stem from the same source.

[jgraz]

337. You have to put the quotes in context

All of his atheism quotes were from his early years, before the religionists tried to adopt him as one of their own. In later life, he was adamant about his own atheism

Einstein was a brilliant scientist, but that doesn't mean he was right about everything. You should look up some of his quotes on women if you need further confirmation of that.

[salvorhardin]

202. You are quite mistaken about Einstein's beliefs

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
-- Albert Einstein, January 3, 1954 in a letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind

More: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion

[northernlights]

254. mebbe. then again, mebbe not.

"In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support for such views." (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, p. 214)


I see a pattern, but my imagination cannot picture the maker of that pattern. I see a clock, but I cannot envision the clockmaker. The human mind is unable to conceive of the four dimensions, so how can it conceive of a God, before whom a thousand years and a thousand dimensions are as one? (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p. 208)

I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts. The rest are details. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p.202)

[salvorhardin]

297. How much clearer can you get?

Einstein said unequivocally in 1954 that he doesn't believe in God. Meanwhile you reply with quotes from earlier in his life that are clearly metaphorical. Keep believing in your fantasy.

[northernlights]

324. Einstein didn't believe in a "personal" god

that is, the old man in the sky I joked about about.

And again, I ask. Metaphors for WHAT?

[ProudDad]

179. I'd like to know his position on

Abortion...

Embryonic Stem Cell Research...

The Virgin Birth...

Bishop Usher...

[jgraz]

189. I doubt you'd get an honest answer to any of those

The man is a serial prevaricator. Rick Warren in a lab coat.

[FiveGoodMen]

187. We need a different Appointer In Chief

[ChazII]

203. Dr. Collins is responsible

for correcting the misspelling in the genetic code for Neurofibromatosis not to mention helping those with CF. Since he has helped so many folks I am going to over look his religious views.

[jgraz]

205. The key to that was his discovery of positional cloning, for which he deserves no end of praise

However, that discovery does not, by itself, qualify him to head the nation's largest medical research institution. Give him a big grant, set him up in a world-class lab, but keep him the hell away from the policy decisions of our secular government.

[ProSense]

206. "for which he deserves no end of praiseq...but keep him the hell away from the policy"

This has become an utterly idiotic tantrum.

[jgraz]

207. Hey, maybe Obama should appoint James Watson, co-discoverer of the double-helix

Too bad the man is an avowed racist who thinks blacks are genetically inferior to whites.

Sometimes being a brilliant scientist is not enough.

[ProSense]

208. "Sometimes being a brilliant scientist is not enough." And

sometimes outrage is brilliant.

In fact, this tantrum became more idiotic since our last exchange.

[jgraz]

210. Well, it does seem idiotic for you to complain about my posts without ever refuting them

Is that what you meant by "idiotic"? Cuz it kinda fits my definition.

[ProSense]

211. Look,

I tried, or did you think your declaration carries more weight than my opinion?

[jgraz]

213. In this case, yes. My declaration carries more weight.

My "declaration" (actually a statement supported by evidence) deals with the subject of this thread. Your opinion is about me. If you wish to discuss particulars of Obama's appointment to head the NIH, then your "opinions" will merit greater consideration.

[ProSense]

214. .

Dumber and dumber.

[jgraz]

216. And the weightlessness continues...

[ProSense]

217. OK,

kicking the idiotic thread.

:rofl:

[jgraz]

220. You can only un-rec once,

but you can kick forever. :kick:

[ProSense]

221. Is that what you're in it for

kicks?

This is probably one of the most rejected threads ever. I'm enjoying it.

[jgraz]

222. No. I'm legitimately pissed at this appointment

I've known about Collins and his views for many years -- usually from creationists who love to insist that he agrees with them. Which he does.

But I do enjoy the fact that every one of your comments jumps this thread up to the top of GD.

[ProSense]

223. Of course you are.

You're legitimately pissed about everything. I remember you wanted Obama to reject Kerry's endorsement. You thought Hillary sucked, now Obama sucks. You're transparent.

Still, this is one of the best idiotic OPs.

[jgraz]

225. You remember some funny shit.

I wanted Obama to reject Kerry's endorsement? Not unless I was posting drunk. :rofl:

But hey, nice job rolling out the "YOU HATE EVERYBODY" talking point. What's your next move, Pony or Chess?

[ProSense]

226. Oh, now you're laughing?

I don't have to post evidence do I?

[jgraz]

227. You never post evidence

Why start now?

[ProSense]

228. .

Afraid of looking ridiculous?

[jgraz]

229. I'm not the one who's about to spend 20 minutes grubbing through the DU archives

Either you remember correctly, or you don't. If I were you, I'd be worried about looking like a creepy stalker.

And, of course, if you already had the evidence, you'd have posted it.

[ProSense]

230. I misstated the point,

I should have said "more riddiculous" because ridiculous has already been achieved here.

Oh, it takes less than one minute to search DU. Like I said, outrage isn't always brilliant.

[jgraz]

231. Then why haven't you posted it?

Go ahead, I dare you.

[ProSense]

232. "Go ahead, I dare you."

Still waiting for brilliance.

:rofl:

[JayMusgrove]

241. Good point! Why use "scientific" evidence when bigotry and being

opinionated works so well for the OP.

[jgraz]

246. Or, you could just crow about your alleged degrees and compare people to Hitler

Seems to work for you.

[kath]

280. but Collins is not really a "brilliant scientist" - pretty widely regarded as an idiot

and a jerk in molecular biology circles, from what I hear.
There are brilliant people out there who would have been MUCH better for the job. A disappointing pick.

[jgraz]

301. I only know his scientific work from the Human Genome Project

I'm much more familiar with his current project, the BioLogos Foundation, which is dedicated to integrating Christian orthodoxy with (i.e. perverting) the natural sciences.

[kath]

330. Actually, jgraz, apparently he didn't actually do any scientific work on the Human Genome Project -

he was just the administrative head of that section of the NIH, and didn't do a particularly stellar job of managing that.
Hasn't done much scientific research of any note, from what I've heard. Not very highly regarded by those who actually DID do all the important genome work of the past couple of decades.

[jgraz]

336. Oh yeah, I know

He's just been an administrator for years, and recently he hasn't even been that. He seems to be a serial self-promoter and charlatan.

[Tarheel_Dem]

224. OMG, what a wreck! K&U....

:rofl:

[scheming daemons]

233. Yes... this thread is major league FAIL

And the fact that a half-dozen threads that are critical of Obama have made it to the greatest page today invalidates the OP's claim that it is "cheerleaders" killing his thread.


His thread is being unrec'd because it is a bullshit attack.

[Tarheel_Dem]

234. I've seen more interesting shit in my cat's litterbox than this wreck of an o.p.

He's clearly upset that he doesn't have five or six simultaneous threads on the greatest. And when did liberals become so bigoted that anything or anyone religious is so offensive to them? DU is such a mess of contradictions. The o.p. sounds just as intolerant as the evangelicals he claims to be so upset about.
:toast:

[malletgirl02]

235. nt

So if an potential appointee had the right beliefs, but no scientific background you would be fine with that?

[jgraz]

244. .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

[malletgirl02]

340. WTF

What is up with the dismissive post? I know what logic is. Like your original post was so logical.

[ibegurpard]

236. I don't find this man's views disturbing at all

And I am particularly distrusting of fundamentalist christians.

[jgraz]

273. Here's what's disturbing

Collins is a prominent scientist who's advocating the merger of science and religion. He says that science can only take us so far and then we must turn to religion. And the way he determines "how far" is through a bunch of idiotic nonsense that denies research in his own field.

Let's say instead of appointing the NIH director, Obama was appointing an appellate court judge. How would you feel if that judge had published a book advocating for the merger of the Constitution with biblical law? What if she said that the Constitution can only take us so far and then we must turn to God to make our legal determinations. Would you be comfortable with that?

[ibegurpard]

303. I would vehemently object to that

but you're comparing apples and watermelons

[jgraz]

304. I don't think so

Spend a little time on Collins' BioLogos site. This is the major project that he's been involved with since he left the HGP. Aside from the fact that it's funded by a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Templeton_Foundation">right-wing group dedicated to http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_Templeton_Foundation">encouraging the integration of religious beliefs and free-market principles into the classroom, it's basically a site promoting creationism, with a bit of scientific mumbo-jumbo thrown in to impress the rubes.

Of course, it's not just about integrating religion with science. Collins wants to integrate http://biologos.org/about">his specific Christian orthodoxy into science. Do you really believe that THIS guy is the best choice to lead our National Institutes of Health?

[ibegurpard]

306. Perhaps not

But I'm sorry, I just can't see the threat that you do.
And the comparison that you gave up-thread was just not valid...seating a religous wackjob who wants to integrate biblical law into our constitution on the judiciary is not the same as appointing someone to head the National Health Institute who tries to integrate his religious and scientific beliefs.
I really think you need to learn which religious people you need to fear.

[olegramps]

242. Your demonetization of Dr. Collins is troubling.

I have read Dr. Collins work and I saw it as an attempt by a scientist to phantom one of the great mystery's just as did numerous great scientists and mathematicians have before him. He seemed to me to be close in his philosophy to the priest scientist Teilhard Chardin whose attempts to reconcile religion with science and the development of the concept of the Omega Point were condemned by the Vatican. I would recommend Charles Henderson's balanced "Toward a Science Charged with Faith" for an insight to his quest for truth.

Perhaps while you are at it, you could solve for me the mystery of how something comes from nothing. I have never been able to grasp that concept. Could there be such as thing a an eternal first cause? Have you not ever lain on your back and looked up into the heavens on a star clustered night and been overwhelmed with the magnificence of it all. Perhaps the lights of the city have done more to block out our appreciation for our finiteness than those rabble rousing atheist.

[jgraz]

245. I took his money?

Really, your post is a great example of the problem with Collins' preaching. As a scientist, he should be concerned with getting rid of the kind of mystical mumbo-jumbo exemplified by you post. Instead, he's perpetuating this idea that religionist handwaving is a valid substitute for honest reasoning.

[mkultra]

253. Perfectly acceptable

Only his scientific credentials are pertinent.

Its foolish to assume that the only effective scientists are atheists.


The big bang is an excellent example. while it is an excellent model, extrapolation right up to the singularity is wildly debated.
Scientific method doesn't dictate that you can only function on proven concepts but rather that you make an observation and attempt to either test it or disprove it.

The theory that a god exists is neither provable nor disprovable, therefore, in the scientific theater, can not be rejected.

Only pseudo-science hacks use science as an excuse for atheism.

[jgraz]

255. Really, so James Watson would also be a good choice?

You know, James Watsons, Nobel laureate and co-discoverer of DNA's double helix? The guy who was also the director of the Human Genome Project right before Collins?

The guy who also claims that blacks are genetically inferior to whites.

Would you say that, had Watson been appointed, that only *his* scientific credentials were pertinent?


Oh, and congrats on your EPIC FAIL at understanding atheism or science. Let's see how many things you got wrong:

1) The big bang is an excellent example (of why non-atheists can be effective scientists). Why? Because when people disagree we need to invoke God? There are many hypotheses regarding the cause of the Big Bang. None of them involve the insistence on a supernatural origin as Collins does.

2) Scientific method doesn't dictate that you can only function on proven concepts but rather that you make an observation and attempt to either test it or disprove it. Actually, the scientific method functions on falsifiable hypotheses, which you test through both theoretical analysis and observation. Collins advocates that we abandon this method for the really tough stuff.

3) The theory that a god exists is neither provable nor disprovable, therefore, in the scientific theater, can not be rejected. The hypothesis that God exists is not falsifiable, and therefore has no place in a scientific discussion.

4) Only pseudo-science hacks use science as an excuse for atheism. I know this is just your lame attempt at an insult, but are you fucking kidding me? You think Carl Sagan was a "pseudo-science hack"? Science is atheistic by definition. If you cannot falsify your God hypothesis, that hypothesis is fundamentally incompatible with science. By pretending that science and superstition can somehow co-exist, Collins is rejecting centuries of hard-won scientific teaching.

Of course, what Collins is really doing is what people have done forever: attempting to use science to justify his own personal bigotry. If you read his book, it's clear what Collins' real goal is: he doesn't like atheists and he wants to somehow "prove" that their world view is as intellectually bankrupt as his own. It's an embarrassing act of pseudo-scientific dishonesty, and it's why he should not be given a position setting science policy in a secular government.

[northernlights]

257. one more time...

But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. (Albert Einstein, 1941)

I want to know how God created this world.I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts. The rest are details. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p.202)

[jgraz]

259. Do you have any original thoughts to add?

Cuz I can look up my own quotes.

[Perky]

261. I have one: You are way too angry about this!

[jgraz]

263. I would suggest that most of the people on this thread aren't nearly angry enough

I would also suggest that most of the people on this thread aren't nearly as angry as they would be had Bush made such and appointment.

Collins' preaching is a direct attack on the foundation of science and science education. He's a creationist, a christian apologist and a bigot. And he has every right to be. But that means he doesn't get to make policy decisions for my government.

[Perky]

267. OY

Christan Apologist? Proof?
Creationist? Proof?
Bigot? Proof?

[jgraz]

268. Oh FFS, if you're going to join a thread, at least have the courtesy to READ some of it

Turn on VIEW ALL and search the page for "creationist", "apologist" and "bigot". You'll find plenty of backup for my statements.

[Perky]

270. Do you really think you are one to ask that others have the courtesy to do anything?

I think you need to look in the mirror a wee bit. You come across far more angry and bigoted in your own beliefsthan any one you dismiss for the same reason.

[jgraz]

271. In this case, yes.

You jumped on a thread without reading a thing, and you got called on it. Instead of calling me names, maybe you should skim a few posts and make an educated comment.

[Perky]

275. Oh but I did and here is what I saw

You became so angry with this guy you wanted to throw a $3,000 laptop across the room

"I don't need to undermine his science credentials His own magical thinking and "God of the gaps" proselytizing do quite well in that regard."


"This is another of Obama's wolves in sheep's clothing. Collins doesn't just believe in God; he uses his position as a scientist to promote an agenda of superstition and anti-atheist bigotry."

You have spent the last 2 days ranting at people on this board

" I wasn't calling him ignorant. I was calling you ignorant."
"How many degrees does one need to be immune from not knowing shit on a subject? Apparently more than you have."
'It's hard to open a book when you're holding those pompons, isn't it? However, you might try reading the anti-scientific screed written by our new head of NIH."
" Well, it does seem idiotic for you to complain about my posts without ever refuting them Is that what you meant by "idiotic"? Cuz it kinda fits my definition

and this lovely jewel

I refuse to play your little game of academic dick waving. Especially since you seem woefully... unequipped.


You have presented not a single shred of proof that his faith affects his science. Not a single quote that I could find in over 100 sub post from you, In fact you laud his scientific work. But because he is a person of faith. uses faith as a bridge for things he does not fully understand you dismiss his ability to lead.


Give us something that he has said that is utterly outlandish that it actually disqualifies him for this position.

[jgraz]

278. Ah, I get it.

You cannot refute a single substantive thing that I said, so instead you're trying to take issue with how I said it.

And, of course, even then you chalk up a monumental FAIL.

Are you new to the internet? Have you not been on a discussion board before? It's not always the Algonquin Round Table in here. I don't think for a second you're sincerely bothered by anything I've said. If you were, you'd be over at disney.com instead of participating in a political forum.

What's painfully obvious is that your ego is still smarting from your original silly post, and you're scrambling to get a bit of your own back. Well, let me give you a bit of help. Want to really show me? Prove me wrong. Show how any factual statement I've made is incorrect. Provide evidence that one of my opinions is misguided.

Or, even better, come up with some of your own original thinking instead of just copy-and-pasting mine.


Failing that, please save your whining about my tone, google "mean man on the computer" and see if you can find someone who cares.

[Perky]

282. Bwahhhhaaaa

and still not a substantive quote form this scientist that backs up that he is any of the three things I reference in my original post. I read through the entire thread and stand by what I said. Proof?

You make an accusation. You don't back it up and you insult those who call you on it.


This is the Definition of FAIL. Nice rational and scientific method you have going on here.

AS to being upset over what you think or say. I am offended by your general dissing of people of faith, who don't believe what you believe. But I chose to ask you to defend what you have been blathering about rather then deal with your obvious bigotry,

[jgraz]

287. OK, let me lay it out for you in a nutshell

(Bonus points for knowing where that quote comes from)

1) Creationist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BioLogos#BioLogos. This is Collins' original conception of how life, the universe, and everything came into being. He categorically states that there can be no explanation for the Big Bang other than a supernatural one:

The Big Bang cries out for a divine explanation. It forces the conclusion that nature had a defined beginning. I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/print/20060815_sam_harris_language_ignorance

He makes the same statement about altruism (which he calls Moral Law), denying decades of research in his own field. Here's one of many reviews that discusses the problems with Collins' approach: http://phylogenomics.blogspot.com/2009/05/francis-collins-launches-biologos.html (You can google "Francis Collins altruism" for more.) At the heart his argument is a dishonest assertion that science cannot -- and will never -- explain the properties of the natural world.

Now Collins takes pains to separate himself from Young-Earth Creationists and proponents of Intelligent Design, but at its heart, his philosophy suffers from the exact same problem: it ignores or dismisses established science to support a belief in magic. Before he came up with the fancy new name, his belief was best described as "theistic evolution" or "evolutionary creationism".

2) Christian apologist: This one is easy since it's a pretty clear definition. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics) It basically means someone who speaks in defense of Christian orthodoxy. All Christian apologists have problems defending the more ridiculous parts of their faith (some don't even try), but Collins brings an extra frisson of intellectual dishonesty. Check out his interview with Bill Maher:

Collins: When I read the New Testament it reads to me as the record of eyewitness who put down what they saw.

Maher: You know they weren't eyewitnesses.

Collins: They were close to that.

Maher: No.

Collins: They were within a couple of decades of eyewitnesses.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyWYpdCpF6M

Does Collins really not understand the definition of "eye witness"? And does he really not know that the first words of the gospels were written no earlier than 70 years after the events they describe? That's pretty hard to swallow.


3) Bigot: Again, this one is pretty easy. His negative views of atheism are based either on pure ignorance or deliberate dishonesty. From his book:

The major and inescapable flaw of the claim that science demands of atheism is that it goes beyond the evidence. If God is outside of nature, then science can neither prove nor disprove His existence. Atheism itself must therefore be considered a form of blind faith, in that it adopts a belief system that cannot be defended on the basis of pure reason.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/print/20060815_sam_harris_language_ignorance

For atheists, calling them practitioners of "blind faith" is the equivalent of telling a gay man that his sexuality is a choice. It's *the* shibboleth of anti-atheist bigotry. Does Collins see Christian beliefs as "blind faith" because they categorically reject the existence of Shiva? Or Odin? Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? No, only atheists are singled out for this attack -- because we reject *his* god.


And, most importantly, this is not just some brilliant scientist who happens to be a creationist, or a Christian apologist, or a bigot. This is someone who has built his popular career on evangelizing these beliefs. Can we really trust that Collins will not use his new position to further promote his agenda? Or should we expect more taxpayer-funded studies like this: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31iht-pray.html

Collins has already shown a willingness to siphon grant money away from legitimate science. His creationist organization, The BioLogos Foundation, is well-funded by science philanthropists. One of the major funders is the John Templeton Foundation, an organization that "tries to encourage the integration of religious beliefs and free-market principles into the classroom". (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_Templeton_Foundation)

Does that sound like the kind of science policy you want the Obama administration to pursue?

[Perky]

309. You really do sound like the Archie Bunker of Atheism

1) You used wikepedia to define creationism rather than how he defines it which is certainly relevant to your accusation, and you ignore the fact that he believes in evolution and that fellow evangelicals should get over their fear on the issue of evolutionAnd you use an atheist to knock his conversion experience WEAKLY Argued and unsupported

2) I think two sentences out of an interview with someone like Bill Marer is hardly sufficient no matter how you define APoligist., What has he written...articulated at length on this subject?


3) SO his belief that Atheism is wrong is a greater bigotry then you saying that people who believe in a "sky daddy" and magic are ignorant Do you have any context for his statement? Do you have any sense of how offensive your statements come across, when so far as I can see know one has challenged your right to believe what you want to believe



Finally and to the point how does any of this spectactularly trump his notable scientific record or in anyway make the case to disqualify him from leading the NIH?


Just because you are an atheist and he is a person of faith does not mean you are 100% right and he 100% wrong particularly given that he himself was once an Atheist. Is that the source of you anger???. He is a traitor?


Chill out and respect the right of others to disagree with you. You are not going to change a single minds with either the supporting evidence you have provided or your belligernce towars anyon who disagrees with you.

[jgraz]

312. Oh boy...

where to start...

1) You used wikepedia to define creationism rather than how he defines it which is certainly relevant to your accusation, and you ignore the fact that he believes in evolution and that fellow evangelicals should get over their fear on the issue of evolutionAnd you use an atheist to knock his conversion experience WEAKLY Argued and unsupported

I did not use wikipedia to define creationism. I used wikipedia to point you at Collins' own philosophy. And then I showed you exactly where his views connect with creationism. Which part of that did you not understand?

2) I think two sentences out of an interview with someone like Bill Marer is hardly sufficient no matter how you define APoligist., What has he written...articulated at length on this subject?

Yes, he has. You only needed to poke around a bit at the links I provided. Here's a direct link to Collins' site dedicated to Christian apologetics: http://biologos.org. I hope you'll be able to find your way around.

3) SO his belief that Atheism is wrong is a greater bigotry

No, his statements about atheism are either ignorant or dishonest. In other words, his statements about atheism are bigoted.

then(sic) you saying that people who believe in a "sky daddy" and magic are ignorant

I never said that being a christian means you are ignorant. Never. Because that would be bigoted.

Do you have any context for his statement?

The context for that statement is at the link I provided (just click the blue words, you'll be taken right to it!)

Do you have any sense of how offensive your statements come across, when so far as I can see know one has challenged your right to believe what you want to believe

I'm not objecting to Collins challenging my beliefs. I'm objecting to my tax dollars being used to pay a religious bigot to oversee science policy. If people are offended by that, so be it.


The rest of your post is pure silliness, but I do want you to understand one basic point: you're complaining, constantly, about my tone on this thread. Have you even bothered to look at the order of the replies? Are you really going to pretend that I was the one who started the attacks? (Hint, look at ignored's post #1. I bet it's a doozy.)

Why is it that you only focused on my replies? Is it perhaps because my arguments didn't agree with your preconceived viewpoint?

[northernlights]

279. religion lives in the realm of philosophy

science lives in the realm of...science. The two are not mutually exclusive. Humans are not machines; they can, and often do, hold two mutually exclusive belief systems at once. Isn't the scientific method sort of designed to prevent philosophy, personal beliefs and wishful thinking from encroaching on facts and findings? As long as he uses rigorous science in his scientific work, I personally don't give a flying fuck what he beliefs "after hours."

Furthermore, since the NIH deals with medical science, ethics plays a major role. So I think it's wise to have somebody who is serious about both science and philosophy at its head.

Now, if the head of the NIH decides to support research into human cloning, I'll have a serious problem with that.

If the head of the NIH decides to cut off research into women's health issues, I'll have a problem with that too.

If the head of the NIH decides to grant funds to research proving that God did anything, I'll have a serious problem with that too.

I'm not happy with a number of Obama's appointments. Summers, Geithner, and the Monsanto disaster come to mind. This just doesn't happen to be one of them, at least for me.

[mkultra]

339. You are just the other side of the same ignorant coin

Falsifiable hypothesis is simply one principle employed in the scientific method whereas the method itself is not based on falsifiable theory. My point is that one can suppose a simple concept,"the existence of god", without it conflicting on the function of science. Since their is no evidence either proving or disproving the existence of god, logic dictates that this premise must remain open. Those who would suggest complete faith are simply working off the assumption that god exists while atheists are simply willing to work off the assumption that no god exists. Both, however, work off assumption. Both parties in this dichotomy believe themselves to be open minded while in reality, they are both simply assumptive.

The big bang theory posits that the event was not just a large explosion in space but rather the beginning of space time. This singularity is what i referred to as the horizon in which most scientists feel we cannot theorize past at this time. If one person feels that God is the originator of space time, these two ideas do not conflict and can exist in the same mind without cognitive dissonance.

you are correct to say that the existence of good is not currently testable by science but it is a leap in logic to assume that it is therefore "incompatible" with science. Science and superstition have co-existed for years. For some, science turns on a light that shrinks the gaps that are filled by religion but for others, it also opens new gaps.

Im not saying that an atheist can not be a scientist but rather that only a foolish atheist uses science as an excuse to disprove the existence of god. As you have said yourself, science has no ability to test the existence of god and is therefore powerless to refute or confirm.

I really know nothing of Collins. But i stand firm on my opinion that holding a belief in god does not disable a scientific mind. If you feel it is so, then your first task is simply to show that Einstein was a superstitious fool.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

262. Oh is this fail thread still up?

The funny thing is, the target audience of this screed is atheists, skeptics, and scientists, not the usual GD bumpkins. And they can see through this transparent puma shit like glass.

[bertman]

265. I tried to recommend this thread but it was after hours, so I'll just say that there are

some good arguments going on on both sides of this issue. Thanks for posting this jgraz.

I'm a person who believes in science, not theology. But I also recognize that there is a spiritual dimension to our lives that is sometimes unexplainable in scientific terms.

Religion leans heavily on the spiritual/mythological explanations that have come down through the ages as explanations for things we may not understand. Does that mean that religious-oriented individuals cannot be good scientists who are able to separate their religious beliefs from their scientific quest for knowledge? Some probably can. Some probably cannot.

Unfortunately, it seems that too much of our political decision-making is being filtered through the "religious" lens and not the "scientific/objective" lens. By selecting individuals who we depend upon for solid scientific analysis, who have made strong statements about their religious beliefs, I think this administration is leaning too far toward the faith-based side of the aisle.

This is a dangerous erosion of the separation of church and state upon which our nation was founded.

[jgraz]

269. You just nailed the core of my objection to Collins' appointment

I have no problem with religious people serving in government (well, a little, but I'll accept reality). The problem is that Collins advocates the *merging* science and religion. That's a showstopper for me.

Would anyone on this thread support Sotomayor if she advocated the merging of biblical law and constitutional law? That's exactly what Collins is advocating for science.


I expect that nothing his opponents say will stop this appointment. But if we make enough of a stink, we may avoid 4 years of taxpayer-funded studies on the medical applications of prayer.

[northernlights]

283. and here's a non-Einstein quote for good measure

:evilgrin: "The significance and joy in my science comes in the occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it!' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." --Dr. "Fritz" Schaefer, Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and the director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia. U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 23, 1991.

As to original thought, you seem to have a one thought mind. Dr. Collins = evil religious-nut masquerading as scientist. Personally, I just find it hard to believe your parody.

A lot of leading scientists also have pretty strong philosophical and religious beliefs. My take on it is they see so much that is incomprensible. And so much of what we see is so extraordinarily complex, intricate, mind-boggling. One almost *has* to believe in a higher power, with a phenomenal intelligence. We humans become so puny by comparison...

Also, you have libeled Dr. Collins repeatedly throughout this thread. (Note, your claim that I slandered Einstein is incorrect. Slander is oral. Libel is in writing. Both must be with the intent to cause injury to reputation or business.)

[jgraz]

284. This is the heart of the matter

A lot of leading scientists also have pretty strong philosophical and religious beliefs. My take on it is they see so much that is incomprensible. And so much of what we see is so extraordinarily complex, intricate, mind-boggling. One almost *has* to believe in a higher power, with a phenomenal intelligence. We humans become so puny by comparison...

No, one does NOT *have* to believe in a higher power. In fact, positing a higher power just kicks the origin can down the road. How did that higher power come about? Did it evolve? Is it the result of physics we still don't understand?

Or was there another even HIGHER power that created it? (e.g. the "turtles all the way down" answer).

Ask these questions enough and it becomes clear that NO higher power is needed to explain the universe. The universe itself is sufficiently complex and mysterious to keep science occupied for the forseeable future.


Perhaps the reason I find Collins so personally offensive -- aside from his bigoted comments on atheism -- is this is EXACTLY the kind of muddled thinking that I dealt with when I was teaching science courses. Collins puts his stamp of approval on the kind of beliefs that have hampered science for centuries. And now he's in a position to inflict those beliefs on all of us.

[northernlights]

286. you left out the word "almost"

Again, you misquoted me. "Almost" was a critical word. I didn't say you *have* to believe. I said *almost* have to believe. Crucial difference.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? There will always be the unknowable. Believing in a higher power does not kick a can anywhere. The higher power is a higher power than man. That is all. God is an intelligence greater than man's (or woman's).

That is the essense of Collin's quote about God is in the gaps, and that is where we must study. God is the unknown, the unknowable.

"Ask these questions enough and it becomes clear that NO higher power is needed to explain the universe. The universe itself is sufficiently complex and mysterious to keep science occupied for the forseeable future."

That the universe is sufficiently complex to keep science occupied for the forseeable future is irrelevent to the existance, or non-existance, of a god or higher power.

When I studied physiology in particular, what I was struck by was that *anything* managed to be alive, let alone stay alive. Think about it -- a few too many calcium ions here; a couple too few of something else -- and everything goes askew and dies.

And watching someone die, which I had sadly done too many times over the years with my birds in particular, when I have seen the life leave their eyes and all that is left is the body. Then I *know* that life is something other than that body.

Here's a funny aside. The head of the bio dept. at my university, which is a *very* science-oriented university, is devoutly Christian. And she mocks "new-agers" for their superstitious beliefs! :rofl:.

[jgraz]

294. Ok, one does NOT have to *almost* believe in a higher power

One does not have to come even close to believing in a higher power.

To riff on your analogy: I work in computers. I've done microprogramming on chips, custom board design, OS and compiler programming and high-level app development. Knowing what goes into the creation of a modern computer, I'm *astounded* that anything happens when I hit the power switch. One wrong bit, anywhere in hardware or software, and the whole system comes crashing down.

And still I don't think that baby jesus is somehow responsible for running my browser. I don't even *almost* think it.



Oh, and the egg came first. By about 600 million years.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041104005307.htm

Ain't science wonderful?

[northernlights]

307. I *love* science, but I'm sorry to inform you that

1. those egg embryos were not chicken embryos, and
2. the discovery of very, very, very old embryos does not explain where those embryos came from.

Yes, they appear to be a very, very, very early coral life form. But where did those eggs come from?

And you're *reeeelly* not going to like what I have to say next. :evilgrin:

A computer scientist? That pretty much sums it up for me. :rofl:
I worked in hi tech marketing communications for almost 20 years, so had many engineering friends. And now I'm back in school and have just finished 1 year of pre-med science. And as complex as computers are, they are nothing compared to biology in general and especially physiology. Never mind the neurological pathways, think of the metabolic pathways, cellular respiration, the number of proteins, photosynthesis...just to scratch the surface.

[jgraz]

310. If you understand evolution, you still should know the answer

to "which came first, the chicken or the chicken egg?"

[northernlights]

320. I asked first

and you still haven't answered.

If *you* understood evolution, you'd be able to answer the question! :P

[jgraz]

325. OK

The first chicken was produced by an animal that was not quite a chicken. So, it depends on whether you count a chicken egg as something that is produced by a chicken or something produces a chicken.

From my POV, a chicken egg is an egg laid by a true chicken, so the chicken preceded the chicken egg.

YMMV.

[bertman]

285. Just because our minds cannot grasp the scientific complexity of an issue, it's okay

to ascribe it to God or God's will? That sounds like Dark Ages church thinking, or religious superstition you would find in a group of primitive humans living deep in a jungle. Kind of like the earth being the center of the universe because we live on it, so the sun orbits it . . . instead of the other way around.

Why not just say that we cannot yet (and may not ever) be able to "figure it out", instead of attributing it to some mythical being that has been used for millenia to subjugate and obliterate entire species and cultures?

I have no problem whatsoever admitting that there is a force(s) in the universe that is beyond my comprehension. Most people who profess to be religious seem to be unable to admit that, so they latch on to a concept of a god that makes them feel like they understand something which may ultimately be a mystery that is incomprehensible to us.

The other problem I have with the religious types being the heads of our scientific divisions is that they often cannot separate their awareness of some universal force, that they describe as god, from the dogma that the other members of their sect believe "god" has decreed we should all live by.

[northernlights]

291. that's not at *all* what I was attempting to say

"I have no problem whatsoever admitting that there is a force(s) in the universe that is beyond my comprehension."

That is closer to what I was trying to say.


"Most people who profess to be religious seem to be unable to admit that, so they latch on to a concept of a god that makes them feel like they understand something which may ultimately be a mystery that is incomprehensible to us."

I don't get that sense from what little I've read of Collins. I don't think that trying to get the radical Christians to understand and accept evolution is a bad thing.

[kath]

281. Spoke w/ some friends who are well-connected in molecular-biological circles --

Collins is fairly widely regarded as an idiot and a jerk.
There are SOOO many better choices out there than Collins. (one person I talked to said that Collins has actually tried to bring religious people on board w/ evolution. I don't have time to research that point currently. But I've known for a long time that Collins does NOT have a good reputation among molecular biologists - one friend characterized him as "an idiot", and this opinion is apparently shared by many of his colleagues. Of course no one is likely to come out and say so publicly at this point.)

[spoony]

289. Awesome, care to name them?

I mean, it's pretty easy to hop online and say something like that. Maybe it would be more credible if it weren't anonymous hearsay.

[kath]

292. obviously I don't want to reveal the identity of the people I spoke with.

But well before today's announcement I've been aware that Collins is definitely NOT one of the most well-liked of prominent molecular biologists.

[northernlights]

290. I tend to take those kinds of characterizations of *anybody*

with a huge grain of salt.

I've been around the block a few hundred times. It always seems that anytime anybody has any success:

1. a lot of their peers call them idiots and jerks.
2. underlings almost always consider their managers to be idiots and jerks

That doesn't mean they aren't idiots and jerks. It just doesn't mean that they are, either.

Now, if my micro professor (who does research in molecular biology) or the head of bio dept. called him an idiot or a jerk, my opinion might change. Or not. The micro professor is himself a jerk, so I'd guess he was just jealous. The dept. head is herself very devout, so if she considered him a jerk I'd tend to take her word for it. On the other hand, she considers Linus Pauling a jerk because that's what she's heard about him. So maybe she's just jealous too.

"one person I talked to said that Collins has actually tried to bring religious people on board w/ evolution."

That is, apparently, what he is trying to do. I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. There are a lot of "Christian schools" in my neck of the woods. The graduates of those schools need all the re-education they can get. If he can help them to understand the Darwin is not bunk and that DNA is evidence supportive of evolution, I'm all for it. Because I've literally heard one brainwashed "college-educated" local say "well we all know Darwin is bunk!" And I've heard a fellow student state that the fact that all DNA has the same basic structure and is made of the same ingredients, say "well that sure puts a hole in that evolution, doesn't it?!"

[kath]

293. Perfectly reasonable that you would take it w/ a huge grain of salt.

Also perfectly reasonable that I don't want to reveal my sources.
Just sayin' what I've heard about the guy, from people I respect who know him.

[northernlights]

296. I didn't ask you to reveal your sources

and, for the record, I respect both my micro professor and head of bio dept., even though they can both be jerks at times. I just don't always accept their characterizations of other people. I find that such characterizations tend to say more about the gossiper than the gossipee. :D

[kath]

299. I hear where you're coming from, and you make good points.

my point is/was this:
There are plenty of prominent scientists of whom my friends would say "Oh, so-and-so got that appointment? Wow! - good for him/her! S/he's a great person."
Collins, unfortunately, is not numbered among that group.

Seems to be a fact of life that the nicest people, and those of the best character, often don't rise to the top.

PS, on edit -- do you happen to have a link to where Collins has been "trying to get the radical Christians to understand and accept evolution"? Thanks!

[northernlights]

311. the entire question and answer section of biologos.org

deals with explaining scientific principals and addressing misconceptions. Evolution is addressed throughout. Here are a couple links:

On evolution specifically, they offer this:
http://biologos.org/questions/what-is-evolution/

http://biologos.org/questions/biologos-darwinism-social-darwinism/

http://biologos.org/questions/christian-response-to-darwin/


I found this one particularly interesting:

http://biologos.org/questions/inevitable-humans/
Humans: Accidental, Incidental?
Concerns that the human species might have evolved by chance come directly from the definition of evolution, or the process that begins with the unpredictable mutations of an organism’s DNA. To the best of scientific knowledge, there are no determinate rules that require these mutations to take any one direction over another. The late paleontologist and author Stephen J. Gould writes, “Alter any early event, ever so slightly and without apparent importance at the time, and evolution cascades into a radically different channel.”2 It seems, therefore, if human DNA had gone in a slightly different direction, a very different species may have evolved. “Replay the tape a million times from beginning,” writes Gould, “and I doubt that anything like Homo sapiens would ever evolve again.”3

However, Gould’s perspective is not the only view on the inevitability of Homo sapiens.

Humans: Inevitable, Intentional
Simon Conway Morris presents a different perspective, arguing humans, or a human-like species, are actually an inevitable part of evolution. Morris is not proposing a different mechanism for human evolution, merely a different observation of its possible outcomes. Morris would agree that any slight difference in the history of human DNA would result in a different evolutionary path. Unlike Gould, however, Morris argues each of those possible pathways would inevitably lead to something like the human species. Morris writes:

"The prevailing view of evolution is that life has no direction — no goals, no predictable outcomes. Hedged in by circumstances and coincidence, the course of life lurches from one point to another. It is pure chance that 3 billion years of evolution on Earth have produced a peculiarly clever ape. We may find distant echoes of our aptitude for tool making and language and our relentless curiosity in other animals, but intelligence like ours is very special. Right?"

"Wrong! The history of life on Earth appears impossibly complex and unpredictable, but take a closer look and you'll find a deep structure. Physics and chemistry dictate that many things simply are not possible, and these constraints extend to biology. The solution to a particular biological problem can often only be handled in one of a few ways, which is why when you examine the tapestry of evolution you see the same patterns emerging over and over again." 4

The patterns Morris mentions are also referred to as convergences in the evolutionary process. In his most recent book, Life’s Solution, Morris gives many examples of physical traits or abilities found repeatedly among different species.5 Normally, such similarities are understood asthe result of common ancestry. However, the species in Morris’s examples are known to be distantly related. In many cases, not even these species’ common ancestor shared the same trait. The implication is that several different species have independently developed similar traits.

The examples of convergence range across many levels of biology....

[jgraz]

315. You can be a creationist and still believe in evolution

For example:

God’s Sovereignty in the Evolution of Humans

Belief in a supernatural creator always leaves open the possibility that human beings are a fully-intended part of creation. If the Creator chooses to interact with creation, he could very well influence the evolutionary process to ensure the arrival of his intended result. Furthermore, an omniscient creator could easily create the universe in such a way that physical and natural laws would result in human evolution.

http://biologos.org/questions/inevitable-humans

[northernlights]

317. that's the overview to the discussion I posted above

It doesn't bother me, particularly when you look at the arguments for and against it.

At some level, anybody who believes in god or any kind of higher power is a 'creationist.' That doesn't bother me. It's simply naming the beginning of something or the beginning of everything 'god.' As opposed to 'big bang' or 'black hole' or 'unified field theory' or whatever it is that started this universe or all the universes, or the energy that drives this universe, or this dimension or all the dimensions.

I also am wondering, now that I'm thinking about it, if many of the scientists who believe in a god of some sort tend to be from the field of biology.

And I'm also wondering, on a totally different topic, if there is any such thing as an original thought. (Seeing as you were ragging on me for not contributing an original thought earlier, lol.) It seems like by now every thought has pretty much every though has already been had somewhere, by someone, in some form or other. Or maybe, taking a Jungian style perspective, maybe thoughts exist as an energy form in the 'collective unconscious' and as we 'tune into' a thought's particular wavelength, we 'think it.' But I digress... :D

[jgraz]

318. You may find this interesting

http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~ehe/publications/Ecklund_SocialProblems_54_2.pdf

Note table 3, where biologists take top honors in agreeing with the statement "I do not believe in God".


In my experience, biology has the most militant atheists of all disciplines. I think it's a result of being constantly under attack from the Answers in Genesis nutbars.

From scanning blog posts, it seems that many of these folks are not at all happy with the selection of Collins.

[northernlights]

326. interesting table

(I really wish they didn't have it sideways. That hurt, lol!)

I boil it down, among physicists, chemists & biologists:

don't believe: ~40%
don't know and can't find out: ~30%
some sort of higher power or god: ~30%

With chemists being the most likely to believe in some sort of god and actually go to church. That fits with my chemistry professor. Maybe handling highly volatile, corrosive and noxious chemicals during labs leads one to sometimes believe in god and pray at lot (please, god, don't let that lithium escape during transfer! don't spill the sulfuric acid...don't spill the sulfuric acid, don't spill the sulfuric acid).

Although I would expect my micro professor to have developed some belief when his Wednesday morning lab set 2 fires within about 2 minutes :rofl: Not to mention the day a student spilled her batch of e coli all over his hand :rofl:


I really wouldn't take blog posts seriously, myself. It seems most people I know are either way too busy to be online, or are unemployed and/or pretender/wannabes.

[jgraz]

295. As always, follow the money

The major funder for Collins' creationist BioLogos Foundation is the John Templeton Foundation. Here's what http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_Templeton_Foundation">SourceWatch has to say about them:

The John Templeton Foundation tries to encourage the integration of religious beliefs and free-market principles into the classroom.

Is that what we want "encouraged" by the head of our National Institutes of Health?


Also, spend a bit of time surfing around Collins' http://biologos.org/">BioLogos website. Ask yourself if this really seems like the kind of ideology that our secular government should be promoting.

[northernlights]

300. so I've skimmed through some of the biologos.org site

As long as Collin's keeps his NIH work separate from his religious "calling," I have no problem. He appears to have done so on the Human Genome Project.

I don't love that they focus heavily on a Christian perspective to the exclusion of other monotheistic religions, but unless I misunderstand, their reason for that is basically limited resources and they actually are open to all monotheistic religions.

I skimmed through a number of the questions and answers. It appears the reconciling the Christian bible with science consists mainly of choosing different/better translations of key words in the bible.

Example that comes to mind is whether the big flood was global or local. Scientific evidences says it absolutely couldn't have been global. So they retranslate a critical word which says the flood was local. Now their question is exactly "where." That that is where their research (if they actually are engaging in research as opposed to just yammering) would focus.

While I'm personally not interested in the arguments presented in the site, I think it's a good thing. I don't expect it will change many fundies -- the type who believe that God translated the King James version (or their particular cult-leaders interpretation) so it cannot possible be wrong. But I think the more intelligent ones could really be helped by this.

[jgraz]

302. Yep. it's mostly dedicated to applying science to Christian apologetics

Which is pretty much what the young-earth creationists and intelligent designists do.

Do you still think that Collins is the best possible choice for NIH head?

[northernlights]

316. first, Collins consistently uses science to refute the YEC's and ID's

in the Q&A section of his website. Second, and you're not going to like my answer, but I think it's potentially politically a brilliant move.

Breathe deep...and read on.

Remember that we have just come off of 8 years of crazy fundamentalist christian conservative rule.

Remember also that, frightening as it is, a significant number of people voted for McCain/Palin.

I live in a blue/red state (Maine) among a *lot* of these people. My experience of the past 8 years is that they are ignorant, armed and dangerous. I mean that literally. I have been poisoned, my property trashed and my animals assaulted by them. They are crazy.

They need to be calmed down and re-educated. Not only about science, but about decency, civility and living in a society. I think putting someone in place who has made outstanding contributions to science *and* can talk to those nutcases is a good thing.

As long as Collins sticks to science in his role at NIH, and leaves the religious stuff to his outside activities, I'm cool with it. Now if his bioethics at NIH include things like trying to kill stem cell research or trying to prove that abortion is more harmful to a 12 year old girl than forcing her to carry and give birth to the progeny of her father/rapist, or to trying to prove that gay is learned behavior, then I'll have a problem. I don't see any evidence of that kind of effed up thinking in the past.

I'm far more worried about Summers, Geithner and the banksters. My real concern is that every other appointment will be rendered moot by a total collapse of the economy and society. That's the can that I think has been kicked down the road. And not very far down at that.

[jgraz]

319. Sadly, Collins is looking more and more like a stealth fundie

According to valerief, he gave the message for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Family_(Christian_political_organization)">The Family's 2007 National Breakfast of Prayer. If he's a member of that whackjob group, he's beyond unacceptable.

[northernlights]

321. Um, did you read the info at the link you provided?

They have no formal membership.
The President typically addresses the annual breakfast.
Bono was a speaker there 2 years ago. Speakers seem to vary in their 'jobs.'
Ward Brehm, who chairs the United States African Development Foundation, delivered the keynote speech in 2008.

The mission statement is *hardly* the fundie hate message:

To develop and maintain an informal association of people banded together, to go out as "ambassadors of reconciliation," modeling the principles of Jesus, based on loving God and loving others. To work with the leaders of other nations, and as their hearts are touched, the poor, the oppressed, the widows and the youth of their country will be impacted in a positive manner. It is said that youth groups will be developed under the thoughts of Jesus, including loving others as you want to be loved.

It seems more based on the Methodist(?) "service to others" and "good works" message. The fundie message is all about promoting hate. This is not.

(Not that I'm part of any of those religions. But the "do unto others" message is, in one form or another, key to most of the monotheist religions. Also Buddhism, which is the one organized "religion" I could be part of.)

[jgraz]

327. These guys are pure evil

Google Doug Coe, the founder. Scary, scary stuff.

[Colobo]

322. If the guy is good at what he does, who gives a damn about his religion?

The anti-Christian bigots around here are probably the same ones who preach diversity and acceptance all over the place.

[jgraz]

334. His religion IS what he does. That's the problem.

Here's a link to his creationist web site, funded by the right-wing Templeton Foundation: http://biologos.org/

This is what he's been doing for the past few years.

[Colobo]

335. Thanks for the link. I'll check it out.

[tomm2thumbs]

328. This thread is roarin'! /nt