Obama names evangelical Christian to run National Institutes of Health

[IndianaGreen]

Subordinating science to religion

Obama names evangelical Christian to run National Institutes of Health

By Patrick Martin
30 July 2009

Earlier this week, President Obama announced the selection of Francis S. Collins as the director of the National Institutes of Health. Collins, while an accomplished biologist and the leader of the groundbreaking Humane Genome Project, is an increasingly outspoken advocate of evangelical Christianity who has publicly declared that Darwin’s theory of evolution cannot explain the moral dimensions of humanity.

In selecting Collins, Obama clearly bypassed many qualified scientists whose appointment would not have generated controversy over their outspoken religious views. The decision was intended as a deliberate accommodation to the religious right.

In 2006, Collins published a volume entitled The Language of God. The title of Collins’ book was suggested to him by the statement made by President Bill Clinton welcoming the first successful mapping of the human genome. Clinton, like George W. Bush a Southern Baptist, declared, “Today, we are learning the language in which God created life.”

While opposing the pseudo-scientific teaching of the creationists, known as “intelligent design,” Collins argued instead that there was no contradiction between evolution and religion. He claimed that god created the world 13.7 billion years ago, set evolution in motion, and then intervened from time to time in human history, as in the Christ story.

Collins claimed that there were aspects of human nature that could not be explained by Darwin’s theory. “Selfless altruism presents a major challenge for the evolutionist,” he argued.

Shortly after the book was published—and more than four years after the Human Genome Project successfully mapped the genetic structure of man—Collins was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Bush.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jul2009/coll-j30.shtml

[Uzybone]

1. not this shit again

[niceypoo]

23. Republicans first

...when it comes to appointments

[anonymous171]

33. Do you even know anything about this guy?

Just because he is a Christian (who believes in evolution) does not mean that he is some archconservative.

[Connie_Corleone]

2. So what?

[IndianaGreen]

3. This asshole was in Bill Maher's Religulous.

While many of his statements are worded to suggest that Collins gives full value to scientific knowledge, there have been unguarded moments when he has expressed views closer to Biblical literalism. In Religulous, the sophomoric anti-religion film by comedian Bill Maher, Collins makes an appearance, in an interview where he describes the New Testament as “the record of eyewitnesses who put down what they saw.”

Scholarly analysis of the textual record during the 19th century, however, demonstrated conclusively that those who wrote the New Testament actually lived as much as a century after the death of the historical Jesus of Nazareth. Their often-contradictory accounts reflected various oral traditions and doctrinal trends among the early Christian sects.

Whatever the particular religious views of the nominee to head the NIH, however, the political significance of his selection by Obama is obvious. As in every significant area of policymaking—the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the bailout of Wall Street, the assault on democratic rights and social benefits—the Democratic administration of Barack Obama is continuing and deepening the right-wing course of its Republican predecessor.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jul2009/coll-j30.shtml

A better question is why Obama shuns progressive Democrats when it comes to making appointments in his Administration?

[grantcart]

21. Really this is just so ridiculous

The book of Mark was probably written during the period while eyewitnesses lived. Matthew and Luke used Mark (and those eyewitness accounts and edited sources from another lost source that was considered an eyewitness) as well as their own material. Acts is the second book written by 'Luke' and records Church history after the death of Jesus and a few years after they happened.

John was not written primarily from eyewitness accounts.

All of the books written by the Apostle Paul were corespondence and written at the time immediately after the death of Jesus. Paul was eyewitness to his own life story (which forms the basis of most of his letters) and is an interlocutor to people who are also eyewitness to their ownstory.


Now I am not a Christian but of all of the Sacred Texts from world religions the New Testament was written the closest to the period it is reporting on and relies on a much shorter period of oral tradition than the Old Testament, Hindu Texts or Buddhist Texts.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

58. Thank You

~

[KakistocracyHater]

100. The "New" Testament contains MANY Bhuddist sayings, "Jesus said" + in

Plus no archaelogical evidence has been found, no palaces, nothing. No astronomers recorded an eclipse, nothing from Matthew was verified. Who was awake to see Jesus sweat blood in the garden?

What I really want to say is that this guy the President appointed is a plant & not in a Prius way. He has taken up that position to probably sabotage Science & Health. But I've been following Dog Emperor's stuff......& I have family on that side, so....taking over the world "for Jesus"....

[katandmoon]

108. Then why is there no HISTORICAL evidence for Jesus Christ?

Because there is none.

It's all a fantasy.

[Aramchek]

110. why is there no historical evidence for millions and millions of humans who have lived?

were they all a fantasy?

I'm not even Christian, yet I see the error in your logic.

[undeterred]

49. Bill Maher is an asshole and the WSWS is hardly objective.

[TheWraith]

75. If you're going to listen to utter, unmitigated bullshit from kook sites like WSWS...

Then I an see why you'd think that. However, Collins' statement is pretty much smack on target for what the historical record shows. Which is quite the opposite of the "biblical literalism" view, which is that the whole bible is the divinely transcribed word of God.

I wish people wouldn't link to that kind of crap. It's like WorldNutDaily for the left.

[anonymous171]

4. lol

[grantcart]

5. Yes a pro Darwinian, genetic pioneer who believes that government

should control the insurance industry because they can't be trusted in ethics.

This appointment was made several weeks ago and we had several dozen threads about it.

It was generally agreed that his scientific credentials were impeccable.

The only thing that people can find fault is that this guy is one of the few that came to believe in God because of what he found in science.

Now if he was a great science and a Muslim, Buddhist or a Jew no one would have commented.

Oh and by the way the guy frequenly goes to Africa to do pro bono health care work.


An excellent choice. Pioneering scientist with strong ethical back bone who is not afraid of industry.


And when he gets up and talks about stem cell research (which he supports) and other matters he takes all of the wind out of the right wing Republicans who cannot argue against him.


A brilliant choice.

[anonymous171]

+1 nt

[and-justice-for-all]

7. Fail..nt

[grantcart]

14. Warning your anti Christian bigotry is on display for others to see.

[and-justice-for-all]

15. Awsome...nt

[anonymous171]

16. LOL MAN U R SO HARDCORE! nt

[grantcart]

24. bigotry is not a scientifically acceptable postion.

[and-justice-for-all]

29. It is not bigoted to say I disagree with religion of any kind...nt

[grantcart]

97. It's your obvious hatred of people who follow the Christian faith that is

neither scientifically well based nor in harmony with the spirit of DU.


The attack on Collins in this position can only be sustained on one position, his religious faith.


People who rabidly attack Christians are as intolerant as many of the religious people who do not tolerate people of other or no faith.


Nothing in Collins background has been shown that he will not be an enthusiastic supporter of all matters regarding science.


His personal religious faith makes him the perfect foil to take apart Congressional (and others) who use religion to oppose stem cell research, evolution or other ignorant attacks on religion.


Collins beliefs appear to mirror those of the President. It is easy to understand these attacks as simply more surrogate attacks against the President.

[Douglas Carpenter]

104. I would say, they protest too much

There is simply no reason to be so defensive about the whole religious subject - especially if someone genuinely is a critical thinking atheist.

If someone is genuinely secure in their unbelief - there is nothing to get all worked up about. I recall a line from a character in the Flannery O'Connor novel, "Wise Blood"; "There is nothing worse than a man who claims not to believe when he really does."

[ruggerson]

51. "anti-Christian bigotry"

fucking a. I truly never thought I'd see that phrase on a progressive site.

[QC]

84. Progressive site?

What?

[Uzybone]

10. "Now if he was a ... Muslim, Buddhist or a Jew no one would have commented"

exactly.

[GoneOffShore]

22. If he was one of those religions who inserted their beliefs into their research people damn well

would have commented.

"if the nominee were aggressively atheist…oh, never mind. A person who was as vocal an atheist (or Muslim, or Scientologist, or Hindu) as Collins is a Christian would never even be considered for nomination. The kind of behavior exhibited by Collins on his BioLogos website, if done in service of any other belief than evangelical Christianity, would be a great big waving red flag to anyone vetting the nomination."
PZ Meyers - http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/07/ken_miller_on_collins.php#comments

Collins is the one of the worst possible choices for this highly important post.

[anonymous171]

25. Wait, how is he "inserting his beliefs" into his research? nt

[grantcart]

26. No one, including the interlocutors who disagree with him, have ever

alleged that he has "inserted his beliefs into their research"

Even in this thread some of his strongest critics in the science world have said that his science is impeccable.



I await your citation from a published scientist that "he has inserted his (religious) beliefs into their research".


In the 3 dozen threads we had on this a couple of weeks ago no such charge was sustained and it was reduced simply to disagreeing with his private religious convictions.

[GoneOffShore]

30. A little gem from Dr. Collins in 2008

" For this reason, it is important that we understand Dr. Collins and his faith as they relate to scientific inquiry.
What follows are a series of slides, presented in order, from a lecture on science and belief that Dr. Collins gave at the University of California, Berkeley, in 2008:

Slide 1: “Almighty God, who is not limited in space or time, created a universe 13.7 billion years ago with its parameters precisely tuned to allow the development of complexity over long periods of time.”

More at the link http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/27/opinion/27harris.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=science%20is%20in%20the%20details&st=cse

Collins is almost, but not quite as bad a choice for the NIH as Ken Ham or any other Creationist loony.

[anonymous171]

32. OMG HE WROTE THAT ON A PRESENTATION SLIDE FOR A LECTURE!

What does that have to do with his scientific research?

[grantcart]

35. Do you have any problem with either the 13.7 billion years or

the Darwinian explanation of evolution?

He accepts all of the scientific understandings of evolution and is a very effective critic of creationism.


Because those are the only two relevant issue to science. Whether you believe that it had a benevolent Deistic intention or was the result on non Diestic physical elements or that is part of a longer Karmic process governed by an all encompassing integrated physics that includes human consciousness, is completely fucking irrelevant.

[mkultra]

65. Thats a reasonable statement

Reaching beyond the scope of science into the pre-matter period. This does not conflict with science.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

72. That's called the Anthropic Principle.

It's philosophy, not science.

I'd say there's more in common between you and Ham than Ham and Collins.

[jberryhill]

87. Ummm....

Creationist loonies do not believe the universe was created 13.7 billion years ago, and came to its present state through physical processes.

[SidneyCarton]

70. Tell me exactly how ramming rusty nails into the eucharist is scientific.

Dr. Myers is a noted scientist, and a bigot, who needs lessons in acting professionally.

[Douglas Carpenter]

64. I'm sure a Muslim appointment would have worked right-wingers into a frenzy

with the Glen Beck types asking like they did with Congressman Ellison, "how do we know you are not working for the enemy?'

A Buddhist appointment would have raised some eye brows also - in conservative and xenophobic circles.

A mainstream Christian or Jewish appointment would have gone more or less unnoticed.

I would guess an Evangelical appointment does among some on the far left what a Muslim appointment would do among some on the far right and have certain people unfairly assuming a religious-motivated political agenda even when the evidence does not support that assumption with a particular appointment. I would have to surmise that this is because both Evangelical Christianity and Islam have been movements viewed by many as political-religious movements. An assumptions that that has some truth to it in some circumstances. But is far from true throughout the entirety of those belief systems. It is a case of way, way over generalizing in a manner that is completely unfair.

[Ocracoker16]

19. yes, there were threads on this when he was appointed which was July 8

The article says that it was earlier this week which is strange since it was earlier this month. There was a lot of discussion of Obama's choice of Dr. Collins a few weeks ago. I remember that he had some sort of website that detailed his beliefs that some DU'ers thought was suspect. I can't remember the url.

[grantcart]

28. Its in the thread you can find it

Basically he believes that evolution is watching God's evolution, that the science is 100% true and it describes the work of a Loving Divine Creator.

I don't agree with it, but in the context of the American Christian community it is ludicrous to paint this guy who believes in science, evolution, gene therapy and government support of stem cell research as some kind of kooky evangelical nut job.

[Enthusiast]

56. Surely you can understand

our concerns after these 'Christian' attacks on science that still continue. Even now creationists are seeking to rewrite text books in Texas to denigrate evolution theory. Maybe this guy would serve to disarm these kooks.

[grantcart]

86. Of course right wing attacks on Science must be confronted

That is what makes Collins such a brilliant move.


Evangelicals in Congress respect him and have no ammunition when he tells them that the science on evolution, or stem cell research is 100% solid and above reproach.


Obama is creating a wedge forcing responsible Christians to face the nut jobs squarely and take them on.


He is painting the nut job lunatics into a smaller and smaller corner.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

59. Faith Is The Belief In Things Not Seen

Science and faith are not incompatible. They are different levels of understanding.

[pecwae]

63. No, they are not mutually exclusive.

However, the scorn heaped upon Christianity here displays very little progressivism. Upthread someone observed that other faiths are not treated with the same derision as Christianity and that has been my observation as well. If one posts s/he is Christian they are immediately assumed to be 'fundy Bible thumpers' and are too ignorant to know what's good for them.

I'm Pagan and the religion bashing gets old.

[fujiyama]

83. Good post

I don't share his religious beliefs and I find his overt religiosity a bit irritating, but otherwise I haven't seen any good reasons to oppose him for this appointment since I have not seen anyone prove his beliefs have interfered with his scientific research.

[and-justice-for-all]

6. Bad idea: Sam Harris on Francis Collins at the NIH

Sam Harris is raising questions about the ability of Francis Collins to lead the National Institutes of Health. In an Op-Ed piece for the New York Times, Harris, noted intellectual, celebrity author and founder of the Reason Project, argues that Collins rejects a scientific understanding of human nature.

Collins, a physical chemist, a medical geneticist and the former head of the Human Genome Project, is, without question, a brilliant scientist. Harris does not question his accomplishments or his credentials. Indeed, the argument against Collins is not about credentials, but about philosophy. Harris simply questions the wisdom of entrusting “the future of biomedical research in the United States to a man who sincerely believes that a scientific understanding of human nature is impossible”.

http://www.reasonproject.org/newsfeed/item/sam_harris_on_francis_collins_at_the_nih/

[anonymous171]

9. And what are Harris's scientific credentials? nt

[Uzybone]

11. DUH...he writes op-ed pieces

that should be enough right?

[grantcart]

13. His science and credentials are impeccable

And when some right wing nut job raises a question about stem cells or other religiously tainted research projects Collins is the most effective voice to crush them.

When insurance companies want to use genetic information for profit he crushes them.


So Harris has a problem with his metaphysics. Is he not existential enough or too ontological? Does he challenge his epistomology?


Harris has one and only one problem with him: He is a believing Christian.


Now I would rather have a scientifically solid believing Christian (or Jew or Budhhist or Athiest) who goes to Africa to work with poor people on his own dime than any metaphysically 'scientific' ass who sits in his suburbia and ponders the 'scientific understanding of human nature'.

A scientific understanding of human nature might be possible but we are no where close to it.

[SidneyCarton]

71. When Mr. Harris produces something that involves more substance than bile...

I will consider his opinion. At this point, his strongest argument against Dr. Collins is that the good Doctor does not share Mr. Harris' personal prejudices, and therefore cannot be seriously considered for the post.

[Arkana]

8. Huh. I came in here expecting much worse.

At least the guy believes the world was created 13.7 billion years ago, and doesn't believe in creationism or "intelligent design".

[anonymous171]

12. Apparently, some here on DU believe that anyone who isn't an atheist does not belong in Government.

[and-justice-for-all]

17. And you can see where the bible thumping has gottin' us...nt

[anonymous171]

18. Because every theist is a bible thumper. nt

[Sunnyshine]

53. Apparently, most atheist on DU know that anyone who isn't a Theist are deemed execrable by our Govt.

Give it up for the forces at work! Thy known/unknowns- he, she, it, them, we. All powerful have's! Whatever is. Or is not. Or may be.

*I know this whole post is loaded with bad grammar.

[Zodiak]

78. I'm with you on this

I was expecting a fire-breathing fundie. As it stands now, I see a guy who is like my boss. He is a Mennonite, and one of the best scientists I know.

Tempest in a teapot crap that really only pisses off hard atheists. The rest of us...not so much.

Posted by a scientist...an agnostic one.

[and-justice-for-all]

20. God vs. Science - A debate between Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins

by TIME Magazine
Since Francis Collins has now been selected by Obama to head the NIH, we thought readers might be
http://richarddawkins.net/article,4047,God-vs-Science---A-debate-between-Richard-Dawkins-and-Francis-Collins,TIME-Magazine

interested to read this debate between Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins from November 2006. - Josh

See:
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1555132,00.html (single page version)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132,00.html
Originally posted on our site here:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,287,God-vs-science-Can-religion-stand-up-to-the-test,David-van-Biema--Time-Magazine

There are two great debates under the broad heading of Science vs. God. The more familiar over the past few years is the narrower of the two: Can Darwinian evolution withstand the criticisms of Christians who believe that it contradicts the creation account in the Book of Genesis? In recent years, creationism took on new currency as the spiritual progenitor of "intelligent design" (I.D.), a scientifically worded attempt to show that blanks in the evolutionary narrative are more meaningful than its very convincing totality. I.D. lost some of its journalistic heat last December when a federal judge dismissed it as pseudoscience unsuitable for teaching in Pennsylvania schools.

But in fact creationism and I.D. are intimately related to a larger unresolved question, in which the aggressor's role is reversed: Can religion stand up to the progress of science? This debate long predates Darwin, but the antireligion position is being promoted with increasing insistence by scientists angered by intelligent design and excited, perhaps intoxicated, by their disciplines' increasing ability to map, quantify and change the nature of human experience.

Brain imaging illustrates--in color!--the physical seat of the will and the passions, challenging the religious concept of a soul independent of glands and gristle. Brain chemists track imbalances that could account for the ecstatic states of visionary saints or, some suggest, of Jesus. Like Freudianism before it, the field of evolutionary psychology generates theories of altruism and even of religion that do not include God. Something called the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology speculates that ours may be but one in a cascade of universes, suddenly bettering the odds that life could have cropped up here accidentally, without divine intervention. (If the probabilities were 1 in a billion, and you've got 300 billion universes, why not?)....

[Metta]

27. More pandering. More distraction.

More by design.

[GoneOffShore]

31. More "reaching across the aisle"?

Don't need to "reach" these folks - we need to teach them the value of the scientific method and not appeal to any sky fairies.

[Hippo_Tron]

36. Appointing Collins to the NIH does just that

It sends a message that you can be deeply religious and believe in the value of the scientific method.

[GoneOffShore]

37. Except that Collins believes in fairy stories.

"Slide 5: “If the moral law is just a side effect of evolution, then there is no such thing as good or evil. It’s all an illusion. We’ve been hoodwinked. Are any of us, especially the strong atheists, really prepared to live our lives within that worldview?”"

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/27/opinion/27harris.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=science%20is%20in%20the%20details&st=cse

I'm not happy with Collins or a religious fundamentalist of any stripe.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

68. He's also a better scientist than you are.

How'd that happen?

[Hippo_Tron]

92. Again, I don't see the problem

I'm certainly willing to live within the philosophical worldview that moral law is a result of evolution but he isn't. I'm not going to object to an appointment just because I have philosophical differences with them, so long as those philosophical differences are philosophical and not political. If you can give me a specific example of how his philosophy might interfere with his ability to properly run the NIH, let me know. Otherwise this all seems like a smear job that isn't much different than what the right is trying to do to Sotomayor.

[Metta]

99. really.

:toast:

[Hippo_Tron]

34. This article hardly convinces me that he isn't qualified to run the NIH

If somebody wants to convince me that he isn't qualified then I am open to listening. But as far as I can see the objection is that he doesn't believe that science can uncover all of the ultimate truths. While I don't necessarily agree with him, I don't see what that has to do with directing NIH funding.

Also, quite frankly I like the politics of this as well. The idea that you can believe in science and be deeply religious at the same time is a message we need to be sending considering the fact that religion isn't going away anytime soon.

[GoneOffShore]

38. Well, if we could get some more lions it would.

[anonymous171]

42. If Stalin couldn't do it neither can you.

Try eliminating poverty instead.

[GoneOffShore]

44. I'm all for eliminating poverty - And the poverty of imagination that causes religious insanity

[SidneyCarton]

81. Charity starts at home man.

Relieve the poverty of your own imagination, and then you can work on mine. From the look of your recent posts, you've got a long recovery ahead of you.

[Hippo_Tron]

96. If you really believe that...

Then you're just as delusional as those who think the world is 6000 years old. Religion isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Get used to it.

[Boomerang Diddle]

39. The World Socialist Website where this biased BS comes from

needs to pay attention to current events as this is an old story.

[IndianaGreen]

40. Is the story true or not?

It is legitimate to question his judgment when it comes to appointments, else we end up with a personality cult.

[and-justice-for-all]

55. See post #20...nt

[cali]

57. yeah, he's an evangelical. he's also a very distinguished and highly regarded scientist.

[SidneyCarton]

73. Sure its legitimate to question his judgment when it comes to appointments.

Last time I checked though, the "no religious test" requirement meant that a candidate for the head of the NIH could not be disqualified on the grounds of his religious belief alone. Dr. Collins is a competent scientist who is well-regarded by his peers, he also happens to be an evangelical christian. Does the WSWS have a problem with his policy positions, or the quality or his research, or are they pissed because he hasn't yet "come to the light" and learned to genuflect at the altar of Marx?

[Hippo_Tron]

94. Quite frankly it seems like a hit job, hardly different than what the right is doing to Sotomayor

The fact that he is an Evangelical Christian is true. The idea that he isn't qualified to run the NIH because of that is a smear. Just like the fact that Sotomayor made comments about making decisions with empathy is a fact. The idea that she isn't qualified to be on the Supreme Court because of that is a smear.

[David Zephyr]

41. "Selfless altruism" is found throughout nature, not just humans.

It has nothing to do with "spirituality". The maternal instinct. The paternal instinct.

Dogs give their lives to protect another species (humans).

What a crock of shit.

[Jennicut]

43. I am both very religious and believe in evolution.

There are a lot of us out there. To say that all people who believe in religion are RW nutters is to lump people all together. Many religious people have certain beliefs not backed or proven by science but agree with the findings of science and have liberal beliefs. I think we need to have freedom of and freedom from religion. But we can't keep people out of every govt. job based on their beliefs about religion.

[firedupdem]

45. +1 well said and I agree. n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

60. Truth

Science and religion are not incompatible.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

46. You do know that there are evangelicals who are progressive, right?!?

[Number23]

50. Not according to a few on DU. Everyone who ever stepped foot in a church should

never be banned from public service, in their view.

[QC]

47. I guess nobody at Goldman Sachs wanted the job. n/t

[undeterred]

48. So he's identified by his religion and not his scientific accomplishments?

Bullshit masquerading as journalism.

[Douglas Carpenter]

52. as long as he does a good job or running the NIH, I don't care if he worships plastic fruit

My attitude about peoples religious beliefs is the same as my attitude about peoples sex lives, "as long as they don't scare the horses."

[depakid]

54. Yep- but on the other hand, if anyone thinks this is going to somehow placate the fundies- they have

another think coming/

[Douglas Carpenter]

62. no he is not going to placate REAL fundamentalist.

I'm sure most of that sort don't consider Dr. Francis S. Collins a "real Chritian" anyway.

But given that more than 90% of Americans believe in God and more than 40% claim some form of Evangelical belief, it demonstrates that the government under the Democrats are not so strident that they even rule out a pro-science, pro-evolution religious person.

The ordinary person who may go to church either regularly or occasionally are not extreme about their beliefs. The average person who may profess some form of Evangelical belief are not extreme about the whole thing either. They do make up a significant part of the population.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/16519/us-evangelicals-how-many-walk-walk.aspx

Most African-Americans embrace some form of Evangelical beliefs, yet remain loyal Democrats.

But most hardline white fundamentalist chose Hollywood Ronald Reagan over born again Jimmy Carter.

They wouldn't be placated by any Democratic President - even if they gave their inaugural speech about being "washed in the blood of the lamb."

[depakid]

88. If you're asking us to believe Gallup on matters of religion- which they actiively promote

Ain't buying it- and neither should anyone else- unless they like being played for suckers.

[Douglas Carpenter]

103. you are engaging in the same rejection of critical thinking you accuse religious people of doing

take a look at a wide range polls and you will see that somewhere around 90% of Americans believe in God and somewhere around 40% claim some kind of Evangelical belief in a personal commitment to Jesus Christ

Better yet, take a trip deep into America and talk to ordinary people - especially the working class, poor people and ethnic minorities. There is is a reason why Republicans have been able to paint liberals as out of touch elitist who don't share their values.

When the vast religious majority of Americans are no longer put off by hostility from the more secular minority of Americans - then and only then can a progressive majority be forged and a new day will dawn in America.

[depakid]

105. Look at the GSS data on religiousity

It tells a much different story- and it's not being manipulated to advocate an agenda (in particular- not one that Gallup's been deeply involved with a for a very long time). Do a little homework on the outfit.

Critical thinking involves looking at methodology, credibility and motivation. Gallup fails here on all counts. They're not interested in reflecting public opinion- but influencing it. Which is why they'd have suckers believe absurdities- like 75% of Americans believe that angles are following and watching over them!

LOL. Please.

[Douglas Carpenter]

107. well rightly or wrongly -

Most Americans do believe in God. Most Americans do believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God. I would suspect most people do believe that angels do exist and I suspect most believe that ghost exist.

If you have evidence to the contrary supported by credible sources, I would be interested to see it.

[depakid]

109. What "most" believe- isn't the extreme numbers that Gallup puts up

when making claims for fervent religiosity. Also, the numbers break down regionally- and by urban rural divides. Texas and Alabama type numbers don't reflect Oregon and California- nor do Portland and Eugene reflect Prineville and Ontario.

[Hippo_Tron]

95. He won't placate the 30%ers but it will help reach out to religious people

[DemocratSinceBirth]

61. Why Hasn't Anybody Mentioned That A Man Who Appointed Him Is A Man Of Faith

Obviously he doesn't believe a belief in science and a belief in religion are mutually exclusive.

[marshall]

66. Why not just pick a Christian Scientist and be done with it?

Go whole hog, as they say.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

67. You must be very concerned.

How are you reconciling this with Obama's status as an Arab Muslim?

[SidneyCarton]

69. Nice false title.

Dr. Collins also worked on the Human Genome project and is a widely-respected scientist.

[SpartanDem]

74. WSWS is about as fair and balanced as Fox News

[TheKentuckian]

76. I don't know about this specific individual and they should be fairly looked into

but in a more general way, at what point are you doing what the Republicans did against Kennedy? This seems like a pretty damn legitimate scientist that believes in a higher power to me, at least on the surface. Ignoring the religion what makes this person unqualified? You don't do the kind of work Collins does at that level without some level of honest heft.

[foginthemorn]

77. "was intended as a deliberate accommodation to the religious right. "--so, was

Obama being pushed by the religious right to appoint Collins?? What is this all about?

[TheKentuckian]

79. In fact, after further review this is leftwing nuttery. A demand for the absence of religion

is by definition a religious means test. The demand for an unconstitutional matrix for selections to government posts deserves to be slapped down as by responsible and reasonable people.

[Milspec]

80. Big whoop

[fujiyama]

82. I think some are unecessarily frightened

While his religious talk can get kind of annoying at times, since I don't find it relevant, he is intelligent, qualified, and have seen no evidence that he's some sort of creationist. If someone can prove his beliefs have interfered with his scientific research I would change my mind.

I heard him give a speech at my sister's graduation from UM a few years ago and he even made a point about it being morally wrong that we're the only Western Industrialized nation without universal healthcare...

[cornermouse]

85. Wasted effort.

Most of them oppose alcohol so his talk over beer in all likelihood alienated them on the spot.

[earth mom]

89. Is Obama a member of the C street cult? Because this fundie shit does NOT belong in g'ment!

:puke:

[SemiCharmedQuark]

90. Please explain how his credentials are lacking.

Collins isn't my ideal pick, but I think he will be competent.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

98. Please explain how his credentials are lacking.

You will be waiting a long time.

The anti-Chriostian bigotry is distressing.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

91. That's a weird comment.

Considering your predilection for woo woo.

[gmoney]

93. Oy...

What a horrible, horrible pandering dumb-ass choice.

Larry the Cable Guy would have been a better choice, seriously...

[SemiCharmedQuark]

101. Please list Larry the Cable Guy's scientific credentials.

[gmoney]

102. nevermind

Removed the flame bait, but I still think no good will come of this.

[Honeycombe8]

106. Hmmmm. Well, it sounds okay, maybe. Collins believes in evolution, which is clearly not

the evangelical stance. Just a religious stance.