Francis Collins and the God of the Gaps

Nice post - I wonder if enough people understand the idea of a "God of the Gaps" to see how ridiculous it is. I keep hoping that some major news sources, or a journal like Nature, would clearly lay out this historical uses of this argument, and just how frequently it is still used by influential people such as Collins. I suspect that all to often, this very compelling refutation of theism is preaching to the choir. Please keep up the excellent writing on your blog, it's one of the better ones out there in my opinion. Justin

I think Collins will probably be a good NIH Director, and probably won't let his religion will improperly affect his science administrative duties. Or at least, not very much.

However, Collins's statements on morality show that he can be just as blind to evidence as any other evangelical when it comes to religious beliefs. Having decided that Moral Law comes from God, he just assumes (apparently) that other animals never exhibit any signs of morality or altruism. He certainly didn't bother to look at the evidence first, or he would never have made the statements he made.

Now Collins may be right, but telling us that monkeys commit infanticide and neglecting to tell us that humans also commit infanticide is cherry-picking data in the worst way.

But when humans commit infanticide, it's usually because God (1,2) or the Devil (3) tells them to.

1) Deanna Laney
2) Dena Schlosser
3) Andrea Yates

When I was a newly minted fundamentalist of 16, I thought Mere Christianity was a wonderfully profound book which made a good case for faith. Some 30 years later, I pulled it out again and was amazed at how obviously fallacious Lewis' Argument From Morality seems.

It's been a while since I read Mere Christianity, but I have a great respect for some of Lewis' other stuff.
That being said, I disagree with Collin's understanding of how we have morality. Perhaps Collins could learn a bit from good old-fashioned zoology, interacting with other species. Morality, like just about every other trait that has in the past been ascribed to just humans, is also present in other species.

Anyone who could be convinced that Christianity is the way to go just by reading the laughable C.S. Lewis (and, even more laughably, seeing a waterfall) is not the kind of person who should be allowed to make important decisions.

Anyone who could be convinced that Christianity is the way to go just by reading the laughable C.S. Lewis (and, even more laughably, seeing a waterfall) is not the kind of person who should be allowed to make important decisions.

Great reply, Harold. But I don't recall making a blanket statement about people with religious beliefs. My statement was directed specifically at people who lack the critical thinking skills to see through C.S. Lewis' nonsense. And as Sam Harris said (paraphrasing) "if a waterfall can be proof of the Trinity, then anything can be proof of anything".

People so severely lacking in rational thought have no place making decisions.

I'd make the same comments about anyone who became an atheist from watching Zeitgeist or reading the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Eamon Knight said: When I was a newly minted fundamentalist of 16, I thought Mere Christianity was a wonderfully profound book which made a good case for faith. Some 30 years later, I pulled it out again and was amazed at how obviously fallacious Lewis' Argument From Morality seems.

When I was a young lad I met a gal on the bus who was reading "The Screwtape Letters", and she told me it was profound, because that's exactly how the Devil works. I just smiled politely and said nothing.

Collins's claim that morality could not have evolved seems to me to be so stonkingly self-serving that I can only conclude he's derived his premises from his conclusions. Which we've all seen before.

Morality, considered generally, is an abstraction of the entire body of behaviors (and the views and motivations that underlie them) found in any gregarious species which must necessarily accommodate one another in daily intercourse and transactions - whether it be humans or ants or bees or cows. Generally, these are rules like: Don't unduly irritate others, cooperate when cooperation is important, act in sufficiently predictable manner so others are not unduly surprised or disturbed, engage in behaviors comfortable for the whole community, find safety, security and contentment in crowds, etc.

Ethics, which probably IS uniquely human, consists of codifying these moral principles into specific rules and rituals and "right" practices (and laws). But note that ethics only codify morals, and morals are evolved into gregarious species, because those who didn't possess them were outcasts, and didn't breed. Indeed, human societies and polities wouldn't be possible AT ALL without a couple million years of evolution as a gregarious species. The Golden Rule is found (by anthropologists) in EVERY human society from small nomadic tribes to large nation states, embedded in every religion, because it embodies the evolved character of a gregarious species.

And Collins can't see this? Really? He thinks some invisible all-powerful sky-daddy zapped us with morality (when?) instead? I suspect we are seeing the outcropping of childhood indoctrination combined with some sort of personal insecurity. All I can see is some rather threadbare rationalization for a theistic superstition which for Collins is simply not subject to examination.

*sigh*

Gert Korthof did the first trashing of the moral law argument presented by Collins years ago.

If you can look at Collins' biologos site, and conclude that's a great example of "good" compartmentalization, you're dreaming. The very fact he made the moral law argument to begin with suggests his level of compartmentalization is leaky at best.

BTW, the question was never whether Collins had decent administrative background to manage large scale science issues or not, the question was, with all the OTHER scientists out there with similar qualifications, why pick the one who appears he must compartmentalize half his life?

oh, I forgot to add the link to Gert's review, but I've posted it here dozens of times over the last couple of years, so I guess it seemed a bit repetitious.

http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/korthof83.htm

The presentation at which Collins made the remarks I reported is here. His comment about "proof" is in the Q&A, about 75% of the way through the video, in response to a question about his apparent "God of the gaps" approach.

As a Methodist who is participating in a group study on 'Science and Religion' featuring Collins, I can tell you that he makes similar disclaimers about his arguments not constituting 'proof' in the accompanying DVD. This is something that is marketed to believers, not the scientific community, and I thought you folk should know that Collins (whatever the fuzziness of his views on altruism) is saying the same things when he 'preaches to the choir' as in the public square...unlike some ID proponents of my acquaintance.

However, the blanket statement that peoples’ religious private beliefs should be a grounds for discriminating against them ...

This is just a pet peeve of mine, but I cannot stand it when people use ants and bees as examples of animal altruism. Those insect species are much more akin to a single organism - the hive. The hive has only one means of replication and all the drones and workers are sterile. They are not behaving altruistically any more than the cells that carry out apoptosis are also behaving altruistically.

wamba said: Now Collins may be right, but telling us that monkeys commit infanticide and neglecting to tell us that humans also commit infanticide is cherry-picking data in the worst way. But when humans commit infanticide, it's usually because God (1,2) or the Devil (3) tells them to. 1) Deanna Laney 2) Dena Schlosser 3) Andrea Yates

Stephen P said:

However, the blanket statement that peoples’ religious private beliefs should be a grounds for discriminating against them ...

Ignoring for the moment that no such statement was made, where on earth did you get the idea that we were discussing Collins' private religious beliefs? How much more public can someone make their beliefs than writing a book about them?

Scott Fanetti said: This is just a pet peeve of mine, but I cannot stand it when people use ants and bees as examples of animal altruism. Those insect species are much more akin to a single organism - the hive. The hive has only one means of replication and all the drones and workers are sterile. They are not behaving altruistically any more than the cells that carry out apoptosis are also behaving altruistically.

Bogwith said: People so severely lacking in rational thought have no place making decisions.

In a recent episode of "The Closer" on TNT that involved the random, unintentional killing of a reformed gang member and community activist, the principal character expressed skepticism that the priest found meaning in the random act. The priest replied that one doesn't find meaning in random acts, one gives meaning to them, and then pointed to the community all whitewashing graffiti off of a wall, a task formerly done by the deceased.

I know "random" is a canard used incorrectly against evolution, but this illustrates the difference between theists and atheists -- one looks for meaning and the other looks to give meaning.

Ignoring for the moment that no such statement was made, where on earth did you get the idea that we were discussing Collins’ private religious beliefs? How much more public can someone make their beliefs than writing a book about them?

Anyone who could be convinced that Christianity is the way to go just by reading the laughable C.S. Lewis (and, even more laughably, seeing a waterfall) is not the kind of person who should be allowed to make important decisions.

It strikes me that some of the criticism leveled at Collins is decidedly over the top. The universe is a large enough place with enough really hard questions that in practical sense we all cherry pick sooner or later. It's the reverse perspective from accepting the life long learner stance. You can't know it all, so there are bound to be substantial ideas that you go with the glossed over argument on. The difference is how one treats the conclusions. If you go around with a weakly explored position, you should expect it to be modified or at the very least not terribly reliable. It seems that Collins in all of his statements is more than accomodating on this point. In fact his disclaimers would seem to indicate he is going out of the way to hedge on that particular point. This is very different from the I have read a couple of Bible verses, assumed they are translated correctly, and believe that they must be considered perfectly accurate to my literal take on them, and if you disagree with me you are a heathen unbeliever, kind of behavior. I think there are more fruitful discussions to be had.

This is the 21st century and everyone knows there are serious debates about the role of science and religion in our society.

I think that scientific organizations (e.g. NIH) should remain neutral with respect to the possible conflict between science and religion. The organization should not take a position and its leadership should not be readily identified with one side or the other.

For that reason, I would exclude from consideration anyone who has publicly entered the debate by advocating that science and religion are compatible or that they are incompatible. It's just asking for trouble when an organization that should be neural is headed by someone who is not.

I don't think Francis Collins should have been considered for the nomination because he is obviously identified with religious beliefs and a view of science that is compatible with those beliefs. I don't think that prominent, outspoken, atheists should have been considered either, since many are on record as advocates of the other point of view: namely, that science and religion are incompatible.

Surely the Obama administration could have found someone who wasn't publicly identified as a partisan advocate of one side or the other?

Scott Fanetti said: ...all the drones and workers are sterile.

harold said: However, the blanket statement that peoples' religious private beliefs should be a grounds for discriminating against them and denying them the right to "make important decisions", no matter what their other qualifications, is even worse. It's just so obvious - an authoritarian system that persecutes non-atheists today will probably persecute many more people for being the wrong kind of atheist tomorrow.

harold said: However, the blanket statement that peoples' religious private beliefs should be a grounds for discriminating against them and denying them the right to "make important decisions", no matter what their other qualifications, is even worse.

Tim said: It's been a while since I read Mere Christianity, but I have a great respect for some of Lewis' other stuff. That being said, I disagree with Collin's understanding of how we have morality. Perhaps Collins could learn a bit from good old-fashioned zoology, interacting with other species. Morality, like just about every other trait that has in the past been ascribed to just humans, is also present in other species.

Sylvilagus said:

Stephen P said:

However, the blanket statement that peoples’ religious private beliefs should be a grounds for discriminating against them ...

Ignoring for the moment that no such statement was made, where on earth did you get the idea that we were discussing Collins' private religious beliefs? How much more public can someone make their beliefs than writing a book about them?

I don't think he means "private" in the sense of "not expressed publicly," but more something like not overtly allowing those beliefs to influence his public responsibilities in a discriminatory way. As long as Collins doesn't start pushing a religious agenda for funding or some other such nonsense, and fulfills his public role as expected by a secular society then his religious are indeed "private" in that sense and should not be the basis for job discrimination. This is merely the same right I demand from my (public) employer regarding my radical politics and my anti-fundamentalist stances. I'm very public about them but keep them out of the workplace and the classroom.

Discrimination and persecution are NOT the same thing. Of course you both can and should discriminate between candidates for a important position in the government.

And Collins’ religious beliefs are neither private nor irrelevant to his potential decision-making in this leading job.

You can argue back and forth about whether Collins’ beliefs will have a major effect on his ability to make decisions.

But to say that his beliefs on religion and science cannot be a factor when evaluating his candidacy for such an important job, is plain stupid.

1) Collins’ religious beliefs are in no way “private” or we wouldn’t be here discussing them.

2) Nothing could be more relevant to evaluating someone’s decision-making process than examining some of their conclusions.

If Collins firmly held religious beliefs are weakly supported, then pointing out the faults of his decision-making process is not discriminatory.

harold said: Forcing people to keep their beliefs or lack of belief secret is precisely what laws that defend human rights guard against. His beliefs are private because they are his individual religious beliefs, not because he is restrained from expressing them in public.

tomh said:

harold said: Forcing people to keep their beliefs or lack of belief secret is precisely what laws that defend human rights guard against. His beliefs are private because they are his individual religious beliefs, not because he is restrained from expressing them in public.

True, if obvious. Yet, as a practical matter, in the U.S., the only reason he can trumpet his religious views so loudly, (books, BioLogos, interviews, etc.), and still receive a high-profile appointment in the Administration, is because he is trumpeting the "correct" view according to a big majority of the electorate. If he were running a big anti-religion web site, writing books condemning religion and the like he would not be put up front as a poster boy for science. This was a political appointment and since he was one of many qualified candidates, choosing Collins was strictly a political choice. Given the fact that every president is first and foremost a political animal, I have no quarrel with this appointment.

True, if obvious. Yet, as a practical matter, in the U.S., the only reason he can trumpet his religious views so loudly, (books, BioLogos, interviews, etc.), and still receive a high-profile appointment in the Administration, is because he is trumpeting the “correct” view according to a big majority of the electorate. If he were running a big anti-religion web site, writing books condemning religion and the like he would not be put up front as a poster boy for science.

This was a political appointment and since he was one of many qualified candidates, choosing Collins was strictly a political choice.

Given the fact that every president is first and foremost a political animal, I have no quarrel with this appointment.

I'd strongly recommend adding moral philosopher Mary Midgley to the list or required reading on the natural origins of morality. I think her book "Beast and Man" is one of the best books I've read on not only the origins of natural morality but also the basis for objective secular morality.

Francis Collins is the former leader of the human genome project, a no-brainer choice for this particular job.

Michael Egnor was assistant director of Neurosurgery at Stonybrook, the same institution that fosters one of the best evolutionary science depts. in the nation, including Futuyma.

...and look who he's schilling for now.

It's not bias when you see someone as dedicated as Collins is to irrational nonsense, for instance (since you seem to like yelling in bold:)

The fucking inane Biologos site

which, btw, he has mentioned actually dropping now that he has the NIH appointment. Why oh why would that be, I wonder, unless there is OBVIOUS CONFLICT.

The problems that Collins raises wrt to heading the genome project, vs. heading a huge organization that is one of the primary sources of funding for biological research are quite obvious to those of us not focused on claiming the issue revolves around "discrimination". Personal ideologies can and DO affect the direction research funding takes. You're damn ignorant if you think otherwise.

At best, your argument revolves around putting up a warning flag that we don't reject people out of hand, which we don't. At worst, it's little more than a strawman of what the actual concerns are.

the solution is not to advocate getting rid of what individual rights we actually have.

bullshit.

your hyperbole on this issue is completely unwarranted and misplaced.

harold said: There are very few individuals with his level of highly specific qualifications for the job.

Icthyic -

Egnor is not a good analogy.

First of all Egnor is a flat out science denier - he denies the theory of evolution. Obviously, someone who denies a major scientific theory is not appropriate for a job like running the NIH.

Although of course, under GWB, a lot people like that were appointed to the science bureaucracy. One of many reasons I don't make the non sequitur jump from "neither party is ideal" to "both parties are the same".

Second of all, Egnor is a pure clinician. He doesn't do any basic research. His views are highly controversial, and could in theory have a negative impact on his clinical performance, but they haven't yet. So he is allowed to practice clinical medicine, even to teach purely applied clinical procedures. He is, incidentally, essentially disqualified by his nutty views from teaching many basic science elements of the medical school curriculum. If he were a molecular biology professor at a medical school he'd be (even more) marginalized if tenured, and almost certainly fired if not.

Now I know what you're going to try to argue.

You're going to try to argue that a socially sanctioned religious observation that isn't associated with denial of major, mainstream scientific theories is identical to hard core evolution denial.

You're going to try to argue that an incredibly important career in basic biomedical research, that massively advanced knowledge of genetics for all people who care to learn something, regardless of their religious views or lack thereof, is not different from a productive but applied purely clinical career.

But neither of those things is correct.

harold,

Am glad you're using some of your excellent logic against the likes of tomh and Icthyic, who have been pains in the neck to me elsewhere online. While I personally deplore Collins's religious views, they are really incidental to what you noted here:

"Collins happens to actually be an enormously qualified candidate who by coincidence has a personal religious stance that some of us find annoying, but which is not directly relevant to his work by any reasonable standard."

But that's not satisfactory to Militant Atheists such as PZ Myers and Jerry Coyne. If it was up to them, Collins would have been rejected immediately for harboring religious views which they find distasteful (Sounds like a modern rendition of the "Spanish Inquisition", doesn't it, with Myers and Coyne acting as members of the Militant Atheist "Vatican".). Judging from their increasingly shrill protests, I wonder whether they are merely proving what eminent evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson asserted in a series of columns posted over at the Huffington Post in late 2007 and early 2008, that atheism is a "stealth religion".

Egnor is not a good analogy. First of all Egnor is a flat out science denier - he denies the theory of evolution. Obviously, someone who denies a major scientific theory is not appropriate for a job like running the NIH. Although of course, under GWB, a lot people like that were appointed to the science bureaucracy. One of many reasons I don’t make the non sequitur jump from “neither party is ideal” to “both parties are the same”.

Second of all, Egnor is a pure clinician. He doesn’t do any basic research. His views are highly controversial, and could in theory have a negative impact on his clinical performance, but they haven’t yet.

So he is allowed to practice clinical medicine, even to teach purely applied clinical procedures. He is, incidentally, essentially disqualified by his nutty views from teaching many basic science elements of the medical school curriculum. If he were a molecular biology professor at a medical school he’d be (even more) marginalized if tenured, and almost certainly fired if not.

Now I know what you’re going to try to argue. You’re going to try to argue that a socially sanctioned religious observation that isn’t associated with denial of major, mainstream scientific theories is identical to hard core evolution denial. You’re going to try to argue that an incredibly important career in basic biomedical research, that massively advanced knowledge of genetics for all people who care to learn something, regardless of their religious views or lack thereof, is not different from a productive but applied purely clinical career. But neither of those things is correct.

But that’s not satisfactory to Militant Atheists such as PZ Myers and Jerry Coyne. If it was up to them, Collins would have been rejected immediately for harboring religious views which they find distasteful (Sounds like a modern rendition of the “Spanish Inquisition”, doesn’t it, with Myers and Coyne acting as members of the Militant Atheist “Vatican”.). Judging from their increasingly shrill protests, I wonder whether they are merely proving what eminent evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson asserted in a series of columns posted over at the Huffington Post in late 2007 and early 2008, that atheism is a “stealth religion”.

RDK, Icthyic, others, please, take a step back and a deep breath and consider what you are arguing. You are arguing that appointments to important positions with the Federal government should be subject to a religious test. Do you really want to argue that?

Dave Luckett said: You are arguing that appointments to important positions with the Federal government should be subject to a religious test.

tomh, what, in your view, indicates that the nomination of Francis Collins to this office is not 'good judgement'?

RDK said: John,

But that’s not satisfactory to Militant Atheists such as PZ Myers and Jerry Coyne. If it was up to them, Collins would have been rejected immediately for harboring religious views which they find distasteful (Sounds like a modern rendition of the “Spanish Inquisition”, doesn’t it, with Myers and Coyne acting as members of the Militant Atheist “Vatican”.). Judging from their increasingly shrill protests, I wonder whether they are merely proving what eminent evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson asserted in a series of columns posted over at the Huffington Post in late 2007 and early 2008, that atheism is a “stealth religion”.

The point is that once you start allowing seemingly tiny, irrelevant things - like Collins' view on divinely appointed morality - then you're opening up the playing field for whatever loony beliefs and superstitions other people might hold. You're drawing lines in the sand, and it's going to come back to bite you in the ass eventually. And if Wilson actually thinks atheism is a "stealth religion", then all the better for us; just throw that on top of the ever-increasing pile of evidence that political agendas trump quality science appointments. You can set it right there next to Collins and Egnor.

Dave Luckett said: tomh, what, in your view, indicates that the nomination of Francis Collins to this office is not 'good judgement'?

I read Larry Moran's post. He appears to be saying that nobody who has a known public attitude to the relationship between religion and science (no matter what that attitude might be) should have been considered for that position, because the NIH must be neutral on the question.

But is that reasonable, in principle? Is it, in fact, fair to say that all persons nominated to head agencies of the Federal government must not only be neutral in effect and neutral in policy, but must never have expressed any opinion whatsoever on any matter within the purview of the agency that might be contentious? Is it not inevitable, given that regime, that the best-qualified contenders would naturally be rendered ineligible, simply because they must necessarily have opinions about the very matters that they will be expected to work with, and be interested enough to have expressed them?

Collins is religious and a scientist, and therefore must believe that there is no necessary conflict between his religion and science. He goes somewhat further in accepting evidence for the existence of God that you and I would both regard as insufficient, but I have not heard anywhere that he has ever wavered in a firm committment to good science, and certainly has not discriminated against any of his colleagues, their research, their scientific ideas or their funding on the basis of their religious views or lack of them. I have difficulty in reconciling this with his being "an extreme partisan". But perhaps you have seen evidence of this that I have not?

harold said: Stephen P. - You said -

Ignoring for the moment that no such statement was made, where on earth did you get the idea that we were discussing Collins’ private religious beliefs? How much more public can someone make their beliefs than writing a book about them?

Here's what my first statement reacted to -

Anyone who could be convinced that Christianity is the way to go just by reading the laughable C.S. Lewis (and, even more laughably, seeing a waterfall) is not the kind of person who should be allowed to make important decisions.

I don't want to go on and on, but it says "anyone" who "could be convinced". Therefore such a statement was made. I don't want to seem to keep dumping on Bogwith, since I actually agree with his view on the quality of C. S. Lewis' arguments, but the statement is there. However, for a better explanation of what I meant, Sylvilagus has it EXACTLY right. Of course, by "private", I didn't mean "secret". Sylvilagus - Many thanks for that lucid articulation. To put it another way, if there ever is a candidate NIH director who is openly NOT a mainstream Christian (whether an atheist or member of a non-Christian or non-mainstream religious tradition), there likely could be extensive calls from bigots to reject such a person on the grounds of his or her irrelevant religious beliefs, or lack of beliefs. If you argue today that Collins should be rejected only because he is a Protestant who values the works of C. S. Lewis, you have a difficult time arguing tomorrow that someone else should not be rejected for being an atheist or a Hindu. Rather than resort to the strained, bigoted-seeming, and currently illegal stance that, say, Collins' Christianity is unacceptable but someone else's religion or philosophy is fine, why not just go with the excellent standard that irrelevant religious (or other) beliefs of otherwise highly competent and law-abiding people are not a grounds for discrimination. For the record, I can't stand the overtly religious writings of C. S. Lewis (I do like the Narnia books), I'm not religious, and I find Collins' claims about morality to be naive (although they can be spun forever, as one can always claim that non-human analogies or most human acts are not "pure" moral altruism, blah, blah, blah, which is why I have no interest in such arguments). If Collins had any record of subverting science in the name of religion, or of making comments that were offense or discriminatory toward others, or any other trait that neutralized his strong record of productive science and excellent administration of large science projects, I'd be outraged by the appointment.

There is no positive evidence that Collins is going to let his personal beliefs run the NIH of course. There is a non-justified bit of transitive logic going on. As someone else pointed out above if you actually read a substantial number of science biographies there is a definite and long standing history for a variety of compartmentalization. Wallace for instance was hard core into spiritualism (mediums, seers the whole bit). Many other scientists have committed themselves to ideas that extend beyond rationale attempts to move beyond (hence the old saw about having to wait for all the older scientists to die for the revolution to happen). On the other hand there is plenty of evidence that Collins is effective as a scientific administrator, a rather rare skill set. Bad administrating of which Collins history suggests is not likely could be far more harmful to science than anything else.
I'm plenty skeptical of Evangelicals, but I've also seen radical lefty intolerance as well and both are highly destructive forces. The thing both have in common is a high degree of stubbornness and feelings of supreme righteousness. These arguments based on non-reliable correlations have all the hallmarks of overzealous cries for purity whatever it's stripe.

I agree with JGB above. I'm annoyed and dismayed by Collins' credulous Godhead arguments about morality, etc. But the relevant thing to look at here is his on-the-job track record. I've never heard anyone claim that he's ever let his religion interfere with doing his science administrator work. Based on his words and previous actions, I see no reason to think that he would interfere with or fail to support even research that had potential to disprove his currently held convictions on these matters. I'd certainly want to hear any evidence of this, and might have to reconsider my position if I did.

But as things stand, his religious convictions, however dopey, seem irrelevant to the matter. Trying to make them a disqualifying characteristic smacks disturbingly of the sort of intellectual conformity litmus test anyone who considers themselves a freethinker ought to oppose strongly, even for people they disagree with.

MPW said: I agree with JGB above. I'm annoyed and dismayed by Collins' credulous Godhead arguments about morality, etc. But the relevant thing to look at here is his on-the-job track record..... .....Trying to make them a disqualifying characteristic smacks disturbingly of the sort of intellectual conformity litmus test anyone who considers themselves a freethinker ought to oppose strongly, even for people they disagree with.

I noticed a couple of typos, so am reposting the bulk of my comments here in corrected form:

It appears to me that Larry Moran and other Militant Atheists posting here seem to have forgotten that the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution protects Dr. Collins’s right to practice whatever religious beliefs he so chooses. Having a religious “litmus test” of the kind Moran advocates is not merely unpractical, but definitely IMHO would be shown to be unconstitutional. Moreover if we wish to condemn Collins for his religious views, then who’s next? Should both evolutionary geneticists Theodosius Dobzhansky and his former student, Francisco J. Ayala (who was a Roman Catholic monk when he started his Ph. D. studies under Dobzhansky’s supervision) be condemned or their thoughtful comments on evolution dismissed simply because of their devoutly held Christian beliefs? Invertebrate paleontologist Keith Miller (no relation to Ken Miller) is, like Collins, an Evangelical Protestant Christian who has spoken out frequently against advocating the teaching of creationism - including Intelligent Design creationism - in science classrooms. Should we dismiss Miller’s excellent commentary too since he is also a devout Christian?

Before condemning Collins, Militant Atheists need to look at themselves in the mirror and ask whether their frequent attacks against all religions is either germane or helpful in the ongoing struggle against evolution denialists. Recently I have been among the very few over at Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum’s Intersection blog supporting their assertion that a Militant Atheist like PZ Myers is really a problem for all of us, simply because of ridiculous, insensitive and juvenile conduct like his infamous “CrackerGate” stunt from last summer. I would go further than the final sentence in your most recent post to ask this question that any credible freethinker should ask, “Should we really tolerate obnoxious behavior like “CrackerGate” that claims to be done to attack religious ignorance and intolerance, but instead, puts all of us in a very poor light if we ourselves choose to condone it?”

Sincerely yours,

John

RDK -

It is both disingenuous and insulting (to Collins) to assert that Collins should be compared at all to Egnor. Especially when Collins has emerged recently as a forceful advocate on behalf of evolution and against creationism, including Intelligent Design creationism (unlike, for example, Egnor).
I agree with you that I don't like or share Collins's religious views. But, as several of us have noted here in this very thread, unlike Egnor, Collins has not injected his religious views into his scientific research or his work as a superb scientific administrator. Moreover, from a practical and legal perspective, Collins can't be eliminated as a potential NIH head simply because his religious views are distasteful to some in both the scientific community and those of us in the general public who are scientifically literate. Indeed, he is most certainly a fine choice to head NIH simply because of his excellent administrative stewardship of the Human Genome Project.

Respectfully yours,

John

He even claims the Moral Law is 'a phenomenon approaching that of a law, like the law of gravitation, yet it is a law that, is broken with astounding regularity'. The law of gravitation is not broken with astounding regularity.

Dave Luckett said: Is it, in fact, fair to say that all persons nominated to head agencies of the Federal government must not only be neutral in effect and neutral in policy, but must never have expressed any opinion whatsoever on any matter within the purview of the agency that might be contentious?

I would restate Collin's arguement. Those who believe that human morals have some connection with ultimate reality are probably making a religious statement. Those who believe that morality is not just an evolutionary ploy, but obligatory for humans may be making a religious statement. Those who believe that morality is solely an emergent human quality could well be existentialists, amongst other things, and some of our finest writings on ethics (as well as some that are not) have come from this school of thought. So near as I can tell there is no real way to step from an evolutionary model of morality to a normative view of morality without some sort of 'faith statement', which of course does not have to be an explicit religious statement.

As a practical matter most of us have figured out the the quality of a person's actual morality does not seem to have any connection with their religious beliefs, church connections (or lack of them), nor with whatever office they may have in religious or academic posts connected with philosphy or ethics.

Oh, and I meant to add that one's sexual ethics, business ethics, social ethics and et cetera also seem to have little to do with one another. Strange.

I'm repeatedly amazed to see that this debate over morality is always framed as "God did it" vs. "evolution did it." This is a false dichotomy, as the vast majority of ethicists (those who read and write about real ethics, not just altruism) base their reasoning on non-religious and non-evolutionary premises. In fact, the general consensus is that arguments based on divine command are flawed before they even get off the ground, and those based on evolution, while better, are still pretty weak. See any "Intro to Ethics" textbook on sale at any university book store. Personally, I like James Rachels's "The Elements of Moral Philosophy."

It makes more sense (to me) to think of ethics as being more like math. Neither is based on divine command and neither somehow evolved as an adaptation. Rather, both are discovered and understood by beings like us who evolved the brains to comprehend them. Now, that's not to say that the ability to understand these things fails to provide any selection advantage...Certainly a sense of math helps with all sorts of problems, and a sense of ethics helps with social interactions. But that doesn't mean that math itself or morality itself somehow evolved (biologically) into existence.

Did we discover math, or invent it?

Mike Z writes... I’m repeatedly amazed to see that this debate over morality is always framed as “God did it” vs. “evolution did it.”

RDK - It is both disingenuous and insulting (to Collins) to assert that Collins should be compared at all to Egnor. Especially when Collins has emerged recently as a forceful advocate on behalf of evolution and against creationism, including Intelligent Design creationism (unlike, for example, Egnor). I agree with you that I don’t like or share Collins’s religious views. But, as several of us have noted here in this very thread, unlike Egnor, Collins has not injected his religious views into his scientific research or his work as a superb scientific administrator. Moreover, from a practical and legal perspective, Collins can’t be eliminated as a potential NIH head simply because his religious views are distasteful to some in both the scientific community and those of us in the general public who are scientifically literate. Indeed, he is most certainly a fine choice to head NIH simply because of his excellent administrative stewardship of the Human Genome Project. Respectfully yours, John

...whether or not THEY'RE fit for the job.

RDK said:

RDK - It is both disingenuous and insulting (to Collins) to assert that Collins should be compared at all to Egnor. Especially when Collins has emerged recently as a forceful advocate on behalf of evolution and against creationism, including Intelligent Design creationism (unlike, for example, Egnor). I agree with you that I don’t like or share Collins’s religious views. But, as several of us have noted here in this very thread, unlike Egnor, Collins has not injected his religious views into his scientific research or his work as a superb scientific administrator. Moreover, from a practical and legal perspective, Collins can’t be eliminated as a potential NIH head simply because his religious views are distasteful to some in both the scientific community and those of us in the general public who are scientifically literate. Indeed, he is most certainly a fine choice to head NIH simply because of his excellent administrative stewardship of the Human Genome Project. Respectfully yours, John

I hope I didn't come off as being cold towards Collins himself. I'm aware of his past record, and after taking another look at the situation I agree that he's a suitable choice for the nomination. I'm just of the opinion - and I'm sure everyone here will agree with me - that a nominee's religious views, especially when as strongly connected to their scientific views as Collins', should at least have some sort of influence on whether or not their fit for the job. Collins may be able to effectively compartmentalize his religion from his job, but who's to say the next guy won't. P.S: I'm sure you're not doing this on purpose John, but I take great offense at your use of the phrase "Militant Atheists". What exactly is a militant atheist? What's the first thing that pops into your head when you hear the word "militant"? I know what I think of. When's the last time you heard about atheists taking part in violent acts, or taking over another country on the grounds of having differing views or beliefs? I hope you realize you're doing our side a huge disservice by using that phrase.

No offense taken John, and I'm sorry to hear about your loss.

RDK -

Not only his family, but my fellow former students - "his children" - and the many millions of fans he had worldwide will miss his spellbinding gifts for storytelling, humor and prose. I knew he was in ill health for months, and am glad that I saw him briefly one January weekend afternoon, and had a few great laughs together.

Thanks,

John

tomh said:

Dave Luckett said: Is it, in fact, fair to say that all persons nominated to head agencies of the Federal government must not only be neutral in effect and neutral in policy, but must never have expressed any opinion whatsoever on any matter within the purview of the agency that might be contentious?

Well, you can make sweeping generalizations about future hypothetical cases if you want but, personally, I don't like to do that. We were speaking of this specific case and I gave my opinion. If you have another specific case in mind I'll give my opinion on that if you like.

It’s not good judgment for exactly the reasons that Larry Moran spelled out in a post above.

I would exclude from consideration anyone who has publicly entered the debate by advocating that science and religion are compatible or that they are incompatible. It’s just asking for trouble when an organization that should be neural is headed by someone who is not.

And given prominence and the candidate’s actual interest in his or her profession, it’s hardly possible not to have stated that view in public, at some point. The head of a University science faculty, the director of a research institute, the boss of some State agency - any person of sufficient chops to be a serious contender for the top job in the NIH - must necessarily have been interviewed, and must have spoken in public, about it, if not in their present job, then earlier. Part of that profession is representation before public funding bodies, speaking to fora, public advocacy. It simply isn’t reasonable to give no opinion on such an important question. Indeed, if the question were ducked or stonewalled, it would be taken as unacceptable evasiveness.

RDK said: I'm just of the opinion - and I'm sure everyone here will agree with me - that a nominee's religious views, especially when as strongly connected to their scientific views as Collins', should at least have some sort of influence on whether or not their fit for the job. Collins may be able to effectively compartmentalize his religion from his job, but who's to say the next guy won't.

Mike Z said: I'm repeatedly amazed to see that this debate over morality is always framed as "God did it" vs. "evolution did it." This is a false dichotomy, as the vast majority of ethicists (those who read and write about real ethics, not just altruism) base their reasoning on non-religious and non-evolutionary premises. In fact, the general consensus is that arguments based on divine command are flawed before they even get off the ground, and those based on evolution, while better, are still pretty weak. See any "Intro to Ethics" textbook on sale at any university book store. Personally, I like James Rachels's "The Elements of Moral Philosophy." It makes more sense (to me) to think of ethics as being more like math. Neither is based on divine command and neither somehow evolved as an adaptation. Rather, both are discovered and understood by beings like us who evolved the brains to comprehend them. Now, that's not to say that the ability to understand these things fails to provide any selection advantage...Certainly a sense of math helps with all sorts of problems, and a sense of ethics helps with social interactions. But that doesn't mean that math itself or morality itself somehow evolved (biologically) into existence.

wamba said: Wow, it took a lot of work to construct that strawman, and twist it around from "advocating a position" to ever having passively responded to a question. Try to be more honest in the future.

I would exclude from consideration anyone who has publicly entered the debate by advocating that science and religion are compatible or that they are incompatible.

Dave Luckett said: I ask you, (and Mr Moran, if he's here) in all fairness, how could a highly skilled, experienced science administrator not have a view on that question? He or she must necessarily have confronted it.

Dave Luckett said: Larry Moran said:

I would exclude from consideration anyone who has publicly entered the debate by advocating that science and religion are compatible or that they are incompatible.

That is, any statement of any position on the question would, in Mr Moran's eyes, disqualify a candidate for that job. There was no qualification of this by excluding answers to questions that a candidate will almost certainly be asked in public, and to which a public response would be necessary. Try to read for comprehension in future.

RDK said: Once you make it okay to appoint people with small religious beliefs (that you so casually brush off), who's to say that the next guy won't be a witch doctor.

He's the head of the Human Genome Project, and he doesn't believe selfishness and altruism are derived genetically. Three cheers for the future of American science!

Larry Moran said:

Dave Luckett said: Larry Moran said:

I would exclude from consideration anyone who has publicly entered the debate by advocating that science and religion are compatible or that they are incompatible.

That is, any statement of any position on the question would, in Mr Moran's eyes, disqualify a candidate for that job. There was no qualification of this by excluding answers to questions that a candidate will almost certainly be asked in public, and to which a public response would be necessary. Try to read for comprehension in future.

It's interesting how your reading comprehension skills allow you to interpret "publicly entered the debate by advocating" as "answers to questions." Interesting, ... and bizarre.

Larry Moran said:

Dave Luckett said: I ask you, (and Mr Moran, if he's here) in all fairness, how could a highly skilled, experienced science administrator not have a view on that question? He or she must necessarily have confronted it.

The current acting director of NIH is Raynard S. Kington. I have no idea what his position is on the compatibility of science and religion. I don't even know if he is religious. Do you? The previous director was Elias A. Zerhouni. As far as I know he did not adopt a public stance on the issue of science vs. religion. If you know differently, please provide a link. Before him it was Harold Varmus. Some of us may have a pretty good idea of his position but I don't think he made a big deal of it in public. Most of my friends are scientists. Most of them don't give a damn about questions like the compatibility of science and religion. They've never thought about it deeply and they never will.

you have evidence to rule out selfishness and altruism being cultural or sociological constructs? i believe it's a false dichotomy to say the choices are "Altruism is divine." and "Altruism is genetic."

fnxtr said: When I was a young lad I met a gal on the bus who was reading "The Screwtape Letters", and she told me it was profound, because that's exactly how the Devil works. I just smiled politely and said nothing.

Dave Luckett said: any person of sufficient chops to be a serious contender for the top job in the NIH - must necessarily have been interviewed, and must have spoken in public, about it, if not in their present job, then earlier. Part of that profession is representation before public funding bodies, speaking to fora, public advocacy. It simply isn't reasonable to give no opinion on such an important question. Indeed, if the question were ducked or stonewalled, it would be taken as unacceptable evasiveness.

John Davis said:

Dave Luckett said: any person of sufficient chops to be a serious contender for the top job in the NIH - must necessarily have been interviewed, and must have spoken in public, about it, if not in their present job, then earlier. Part of that profession is representation before public funding bodies, speaking to fora, public advocacy. It simply isn't reasonable to give no opinion on such an important question. Indeed, if the question were ducked or stonewalled, it would be taken as unacceptable evasiveness.

I think there is a vast difference between stating one's view in response to a direct question, and writing a book called "The Language of God". If you can't see the difference between those two extremes, I'm not sure there's much left to debate.

Dave Luckett said: Bisarre? It's good to be told that you didn't actually mean what you wrote, but I'll set the steps out: Any answer to any question, if responsive, is a statement. Any statement made in public is a public statement. Any statement of support for any view on any issue is ipso facto advocacy for that view. If made in public, it is public advocacy for that view.

advocacy - the act of pleading for, supporting, or recommending; active espousal: He was known for his advocacy of states' rights. advocacy - The act of pleading or arguing in favor of something, such as a cause, idea, or policy; active support.

John Davis said: I think there is a vast difference between stating one's view in response to a direct question, and writing a book called "The Language of God". If you can't see the difference between those two extremes, I'm not sure there's much left to debate.

wamba said:

Dave Luckett said: Bisarre? It's good to be told that you didn't actually mean what you wrote, but I'll set the steps out: Any answer to any question, if responsive, is a statement. Any statement made in public is a public statement. Any statement of support for any view on any issue is ipso facto advocacy for that view. If made in public, it is public advocacy for that view.

Dictionary.com:

advocacy - the act of pleading for, supporting, or recommending; active espousal: He was known for his advocacy of states' rights. advocacy - The act of pleading or arguing in favor of something, such as a cause, idea, or policy; active support.

This does not mesh well with the position that your reading comprehension is superior to mine.

Francis Collins made public statements of his opinion about religion and science, as part and parcel of his support for evolution and his opposition to religious bigotry and blatantly dishonest pseudoscience. I fail to see why this should be seen as disqualifying.

Furthermore, Moran's attempt to imply that Collins' stated opinion and its exact opposite are somehow equivalent, and equally disqualifying, is utter nonsense. One of these opinions is true, the other false. One is beneficial to the core values of a secular democracy, the other is militantly hostile to those same values. Creationists and other lying bigots equate the two for their own evil purposes; and we do ourselves no favors by playing their game by their rules.

Well raged, bee.

Dave Luckett said: "It does not mesh well"? Is that the best you can do? Or are you going to call me dishonest again?

You are arguing that appointments to important positions with the Federal government should be subject to a religious test.

again, this is a strawman of the actual arguments involved.

You, just like Harold, are making shit up as you go along.

Never, ever have I said that there should be a "religious test", instead, there always should be a general interest test, and for a man who doesn't think issues like ethics can even remotely be related to natural causes, where do you think his priorities will lie wrt to funding for basic research regarding the evolution of social behavior, for one example?

these things have already been brought up MANY times, and yet for some reason, people like you and Harold always want to introduce a strawman of the argument and create unecessary hyperbole.

it's patently ridiculous, and hardly furthers debate on the issue.

It's like screaming "ANTISEMITISISM!" whenever someone criticizes aspects of Israeli political policy.

A said:

fnxtr said: When I was a young lad I met a gal on the bus who was reading "The Screwtape Letters", and she told me it was profound, because that's exactly how the Devil works. I just smiled politely and said nothing.

And I bet you've been kicking yourself ever since for being thick enough to miss the obvious opening she was giving you!

I disagree. I'll echo Chip, Harold, Dave Luckett, JGB, MPW, and others and say the first and foremost criteria for job selection should be his competence at doing similar/relevant jobs.

you fucking clowns don't even have the slightest clue what the similarities/differences are between heading the human genome project and heading NIH are.

It's truly sad.

Never, ever have I said that there should be a “religious test”, instead, there always should be a general interest test, and for a man who doesn’t think issues like ethics can even remotely be related to natural causes, where do you think his priorities will lie wrt to funding for basic research regarding the evolution of social behavior, for one example?

So take his actions and decisions, and use them to get a good idea of where his priorities lie. Is this particular opinion of his reflected in any egregiously bad or dishonest actions?

you fucking clowns don't even have the slightest clue what the similarities/differences are between heading the human genome project and heading NIH are

Ichthyic said: there always should be a general interest test, and for a man who doesn't think issues like ethics can even remotely be related to natural causes, where do you think his priorities will lie wrt to funding for basic research regarding the evolution of social behavior, for one example?

I think that you have no evidence that his priorities will be governed by his religious beliefs.

you mean, other than his book and the Biologos Site?

why, you're right, I don't.

Why not put Ken Ham in charge?

why, you’re right, I don’t.

Okay. So this argument is over, right?

Why not put Ken Ham in charge?

So...first you admit you have no evidence that Collins' actual work has ever been compromised by his beliefs; but you compare him to Ken Ham anyway?

Ichthyic said: ...for a man who doesn't think issues like ethics can even remotely be related to natural causes, where do you think his priorities will lie wrt to funding for basic research regarding the evolution of social behavior, for one example?

Ichthyic said: and for a man who doesn't think issues like ethics can even remotely be related to natural causes, where do you think his priorities will lie wrt to funding for basic research regarding the evolution of social behavior, for one example?

So now, after already having been reduced to pathetic little quibbles about the precise meaning of "advocacy", the religious fundamentalists show their true colours. Bit of a come-down from "strawman" and "dishonesty", isn't it? But oh, wait, there's always "fucking clown"; and having catastrophically failed at a false equivalence, (advocacy for a position is exactly the same thing as prejudicial action in favour of it) let's pretend instead to insinuate that heading the human genome project and heading NIH are totally different, and that the one is nothing to do with the other...

Well, that didn't fly, so one more try at the old false equivalence. Nominating Francis Collins is exactly the same as nominating Ken Ham.

It really does make me wish there was a God, just so I could look at the faces of these guys when they find out.

Sylvilagus said: Do you have any evidence as to which of these best reflects his position?

To his credit, Collins answered that he wasn’t claiming ‘proofs’ (his word) but rather only indications or pointers,” not dispositive evidence. Hoppe added privately that Collins had said that his faith would not be affected if it turned out that morality could be an evolved trait. Collins is evidently flexible in his thinking, and possibly he is reevaluating his position on the relation between morality and theism.

I don't question the competence of Mr. Collins, from everything I've read he seems quite capable. I just don't think it's wise to put him in a position of such authority and visibilty to use as a pulpit. Given that he's personally started a website and written a book in order to proselytize, continuing to do so in an important public position seems abusive to me.

To forestall accusations I'm a "militant atheist", I don't think Richard Dawkins (I'm thinking of "The God Delusion") would be appropriate to fill a high-profile public position either. The only reason anyone cares about their opinions on religion is because they were first recognized for work done in their fields of expertise. They should stick to them.

Given all that, it could be worse. Though Collins' own brand of theistic evolution requires the ability for "doublethink", at least he's not a fundamentalist.

Ichthyic said: I think that you have no evidence that his priorities will be governed by his religious beliefs. you mean, other than his book and the Biologos Site? why, you're right, I don't.

John Davis said: I don't question the competence of Mr. Collins, from everything I've read he seems quite capable. I just don't think it's wise to put him in a position of such authority and visibilty to use as a pulpit. Given that he's personally started a website and written a book in order to proselytize, continuing to do so in an important public position seems abusive to me.

There are indeed conservative Christians who support evolution and reject creationism and other forms of phony politicized pseudoscience. Reminding Americans in general that such people exist will, over the long term, take a HUGE bite out of the creationists' and theocrats' appeal (most of which is purely tribalistic anyway). If giving Collins a high-profile job like this reinforces the reminder, then it's a good idea. Maybe not the best idea, but surely far from the worst, and well worth our support.

Dave Luckett said: So now, after already having been reduced to pathetic little quibbles about the precise meaning of "advocacy"...

Yes, it's beside the point. The question of how far "advocacy" goes is actually irrelevant. I'll stick to saying that it means speaking in favour of something, and I still maintain that's a reasonable definition without descending to dictionaries at ten paces, but that to one side.

I thought, and still think, that advocacy for a theological position, whatever is meant by "advocacy", and whatever the position, is neither a qualification nor a disqualification for the position of head of the NIH. Larry Moran and others think otherwise. Mr Moran puts his case politely, and so does John Davis and others.

Your own view is that the candidate's theological position has become a qualification, but that's politics. Again, you put that politely, and I agree with much of what you say. That would be deplorable, but I would point out that to demonstrate your case you would need to be privy to the thought of the Obama administration. I am not ruling it out, mind. I am merely prepared to extend credit where I can't demonstrate wrong. I'd prefer to show goodwill, where it's tenable, and not attribute dishonesty, idiocy or clownishness where I can't demonstrate it.

I can only commend that rule to all and sundry. It actually improves the chance of obtaining consensus. Funny business, this ethics, isn't it?

Dave Luckett said: I’d prefer to show goodwill, where it’s tenable, and not attribute dishonesty, idiocy or clownishness where I can’t demonstrate it.

Dave Luckett said: Funny business, this ethics, isn't it?

Sorry, I see how the sentence might have come over that way. I don't mean to imply that you did attribute those things to that appointment. (You do attribute low political cunning to it, but that is something else again.) I meant the sentence to refer to the general principle given immediately before it: "I am merely prepared to extend credit where I can’t demonstrate wrong. I’d prefer to show goodwill, where it’s tenable...". That is, I think it is a good rule in general to do that, and a good rule in general not to attribute those things where they can't be demonstrated.

Please accept my apology for the unintended implication.

And should that last sentence have been accompanied by an emote? I wouldn't know, my irony meter is at the shop.

So, your sole evidence that writing religious books reduces one's ability to do a science job is the fact that he wrote a religious book?

spoken like someone who has not read the book.

@bee:

So…first you admit you have no evidence that Collins' actual work has ever been compromised by his beliefs

sarcasm - you need to learn to recognize it.

if it turned out that morality could be an evolved trait.

The point is, contrary to all available evidence, Collins refuses to believe it is, and wrote not only a book, but an entire site devoted to refuting it via gross or deliberate ignorance of entire fields of scientific endeavor.

again, people who argue against this obviously either know nothing about any of the following:

-what Collins "Moral Law" argument is actually based on

-that it entirely ignores all research regarding the evolution of social behavior in animals

-that it entirely ignores all research regarding brain anatomy and social behavior in humans

When your religion MAKES you ignore entire fields of endeavor relevant to an explanation of real-world behavior or morphology, that's NOT a good thing.

several people have documented how actually Collins fared rather POORLY as a manager of the human genome project.

I really do think in your fervor to protect religious ideology, you are tossing obvious conflicts out the window.

It's simply NOT an issue of knee-jerk discrimination like you are trying to paint it.

Ideology DOES affect funding, both directly and indirectly. If you deny that as fact, you're really a bunch of armchair morons, commenting on things you haven't the slightest clue about.

It's like you have entirely forgotten the entire stem cell research funding issue, for one of literally thousands that have been affected wrt to funding because of personal ideologies.

You people are HELPING to destroy basic science funding in america, one small step at a time.

I thought, and still think, that advocacy for a theological position, whatever is meant by "advocacy", and whatever the position, is neither a qualification nor a disqualification for the position of head of the NIH.

AGAIN, that's not what this is about.

This is about someone whose "advocacy" runs so far as to interfere with his thinking about science itself.

there is NO OTHER WAY to explain his "Moral Law" argument otherwise.

did you even bother to read the many reviews of Collins' book?

I even provided a link to Gert's, which was actually put up as a good review here on the thumb when it was still populated with mostly thinking folk.

Science by its very nature ought to be unfettered by any particular perspective on what the right answers are supposed to be.

nominating Francis Collins is exactly the same as nominating Ken Ham.

Ken Ham:

someone whose religious ideology interferes with his ability to accept science. (surely you don't need me to list all the reasons why, you're HERE aren't you?)

Francis Collins:

someone whose religious ideology interferes with his ability to accept science.

again, please scientifically defend his moral law argument for me.

it's a quantitative difference in my mind, not a qualitative one.

How about Michael Egnor?

He's a professor and assistant director of Neurosurgery at Stonybrook. Why wouldn't you support HIM for director of NIH.

the charge of false equivalency only rings true when there is no comparison.

I'd prefer to show goodwill, where it's tenable, and not attribute dishonesty, idiocy or clownishness where I can't demonstrate it.

you demonstrated your clownishness quite clearly. I wouldn't have bothered to mention it otherwise.

@kakapo:

does the NIH fund basic research regarding the evolution of social behavior? maybe it does, but i wasn't aware of it.

Yup. they've funding thousands of studies on the evolution of mate choice, for example, and aggression between mates, etc. In fact NIH was the primary source of funding for the lab studying cichlid behavior when I was a grad student. Well, until it was cut after 30 years and dozens of good publications because a new director of that part of NIH rather thought there was too much money being spent on behavior research.

Perhaps that why I'm so sensitive towards those not looking at how ideology can affect science funding; they obviously haven't actually directly experienced it themselves.

If those that want to paint this as an issue of "discrimination" wish to continue to do so, then I have every right to call you clowns.

Science by its very nature ought to be unfettered by any particular perspective on what the right answers are supposed to be.

Moral

Law

He can say any cute quote he wishes, but there's simply no way one could even conceive of such an idea without exposure and acceptance of religious ideology as being a better explanation than science.

Matter: Black and white thinking, check. Exclusion of the defensible middle, check. False dichotomy, check. Ditto equivalence, check. Catastrophism, check. Slippery slope argument, check. Exclusion of actual evidence from the real world, and elevation of a text to same, check. Non-sequiturs, check.

Manner: Shouting in caps, check. Personal abuse, check. Extra point for directing it at both opponents and fellow-travellers, check. Actual incoherence, check. Rage, check.

I call full house.

Black and white thinking, check.

irrelevancy, check.

Exclusion of the defensible middle, check.

fallacy of the golden mean, check.

False dichotomy, check.

lie, check.

Slippery slope argument, check.

strawman, check.

Exclusion of actual evidence from the real world

Denial of actual evidence from the real world, check.

Shouting in caps, check. Personal abuse, check.

Evading the issue, check.

I call full house.

I call clown car.

"I thought, and still think, that advocacy for a theological position, whatever is meant by “advocacy”, and whatever the position, is neither a qualification nor a disqualification for the position of head of the NIH." AGAIN, that’s not what this is about. This is about someone whose “advocacy” runs so far as to interfere with his thinking about science itself.

Sorry, Ichthyic, you pretty much blew your credibility by comparing Collins, a respected scientist whose actual work is unanimously respected on this blog, with Ken Ham, who has done absolutely nothing worthy or respect. Raging multiple posts won't get back what you pissed away.

We all need to understand that there's a political issue here: if we reject a widely respected scientist solely on the basis of his religious opinions, that will play right into the hands of the "Expelled" gang, who will take it as proof that jackbooted evilutionists really are purging good Christian scientists from their black helicopters and that's why there's no published ID research.

And I find I am using too broad a definition of "false dichotomy", but there was still one being used. The false dichotomy is that it was urged that Francis Collins can either be an effective and successful science administrator or be an advocate for theism; there is no third way. This is neither logically necessary nor actually true.

Ichthyic said: The point is, contrary to all available evidence, Collins refuses to believe [morality is an evolved trait], and wrote not only a book, but an entire site devoted to refuting it via gross or deliberate ignorance of entire fields of scientific endeavor.

Ideology DOES affect funding, both directly and indirectly. If you deny that as fact, you're really a bunch of armchair morons, commenting on things you haven't the slightest clue about.... ...It's like you have entirely forgotten the entire stem cell research funding issue, for one of literally thousands that have been affected wrt to funding because of personal ideologies.

What really sticks in my craw about Ichthyic’s argument is that it wasn’t too long ago that atheists (and Jews) were excluded from public service using his argument.

Good Point. Turnabout is NOT fair play here; and even if it is, it still won't win us the game.

whose actual work is unanimously respected on this blog

whose credibility has faded tremendously over the last couple of years itself.

sad to see it, frankly.

Despite a complete lack of evidence that any job decision Collins has made has been impacted by his religion, you place him in the former category instead of the latter.

because of the way he thinks about evolution. period. it's in his writings.

it's bloody obvious, but you ilk seem to want to ignore it in favor of thinking you're doing good by ignoring his tremendously poor understanding of it wrt to behavior.

If you want to do something useful in defense of Collins, why don't you scientifically support his notion of Moral Law?

that's obviously rhetorical, because you can't.

What really sticks in my craw about Ichthyic's argument is that it wasn't too long ago that atheists (and Jews) were excluded from public service using his argument.

talk about false equivalency!

Pace Ernst Mayr [ "What Evolution Is '] and George Gaylord Simpson [ "The Life of the Past'], the weight of evidence presents no cosmic teleology, and such teleology would contradict natural selection rather than be consonant with it as theistic evolutionists claim. My friend Jerry Coyne effectively puts theistic evolution into the oxymoron camp in his article 'Seeing and Belieivng." So argues the atellic/teleonomic aargument.
Collins is using two fallacious arguments : the argument from beauty in arguing for His existence from the world around us and the argument from pareidolia in seeing Him and design in addition to natural causes and patterns as one sees Yeshua in a stain glasss - no there there.
And Coyne affirms with evidence that theists beg the question in assuming that we or a comparable species would arrive. A writer in Skeptic magazine also notes that had we not arrived, no comparable species would have arrived. Neanderthals disappeard, so they don't count. Yes, they beg the question in assuming that He had us in mind is a naturalist argument when natural selection, the non-planning, anti-chance agent of Nature needs no director.
And Hume's dysteological argument -form imperfections- counts against Him.
So, Collins relies on faith, the we just say so of credulity. Faith begs the question of its subject. Whilst science is acquired knowedge, as Sydney Hook notes, faith begs the question of being science.
Logic is the bane of theists. All their begged questions!

He also stated point blank that if he was wrong, it wouldn't be a big religious deal to him. But you ignore that statement

I addressed that already, but I'll go ahead and rephrase:

hardly cherry picking because it's entirely irrelevant to him having made the argument to begin with.

If Egnor admits that it wouldn't impact his faith if his inane concept of god "beaming" consciousness into people was wrong, would that make you look askance at it any the less? Would you think him a great supporter of funding for evolutionary biology research then? There's every evidence it hasn't affect his job as a professor of neurosurgery...

The problem here is, you people supporting him don't appear to have the foggiest notion of just why his moral law argument is so bad.

again, and for the last time, try reading Gert's review, if you don't intend to bother reading Collins' book yourselves.

Sorry for the typos . argument from imperfections "The Life of the Past" " Seeing and Believing"

Oh, I hope Lenny Flank will this readable unlike my first effort here years ago on this subject.
I'm a new atheist, anti-theist, but maybe Collins will do a good job.
Lenny rocks!
Oh, Coyne and my other friend [FaceBook] will have quite excellent books out on the evidence for evolution as most of us already know.They rock!

other friend Dawkins, sorry no more from now on

Ichthyic said: The problem here is, you people supporting him don't appear to have the foggiest notion of just why his moral law argument is so bad.

Sylvilagus said: The problem is something called the U.S. Constitution and the problems that arise when religious beliefs or claims,no matter how faulty, are taken as face value evidence of the believer being unsuitable for a specific public job. That's what the discussion is about.

tomh said:

Sylvilagus said: The problem is something called the U.S. Constitution and the problems that arise when religious beliefs or claims,no matter how faulty, are taken as face value evidence of the believer being unsuitable for a specific public job. That's what the discussion is about.

Let's hope that's not what this discussion is about, since the U.S. Constitution has nothing to do with this situation. The Constitution forbids the federal government from setting any religious test for office. A political appointment does not fall in that category and the President can use any criteria he wants, religion, hair color, or any other in making this appointment. Bush proved this by flooding the Justice Department with Liberty University graduates, all perfectly legal. You may have your reasons for approving of the Collins appointment, but claiming that it would violate the Constitution should not be one of them.

Ichthyic said: How about Michael Egnor? He's a professor and assistant director of Neurosurgery at Stonybrook. Why wouldn't you support HIM for director of NIH. the charge of false equivalency only rings true when there is no comparison.

Sylvilagus said: the problems that arise when religious beliefs or claims,no matter how faulty, are taken as face value evidence of the believer being unsuitable for a specific public job. That's what the discussion is about.