大象传媒

Most people don't have an issue with Francis Collins chosen belief, and certainly no one is doubting the quality of his work as he is an exception geneticist and humanitarian.

The problem is that he is a little bit to happy to insert god into all the gaps that science has at the moment. I've heard him speak a few times, and each time he brings up the same old chestnuts; God started the universe, god sat around a bit, god put the spark of intelligence into Homo sapiens, god sat around a bit, god sent his son down to earth, god sat around a bit. Gappy god looks a little pale compared to his old testament bombastic self, almost not worth believing in.

That said I think he is a pretty good choice for NIH director. He is an excellent communicator, scientist and all round nice chap. I think the current furore is a bit of a storm in a tea cup, and this is me the atheist/agnostic/Zeus believer speaking.

Is the latter part of the thread title meant to be flame bait or something? Harris is objecting primarily to how Collins mixes science with religion. Thereby doing a disservice to science. For instance when Harris writes

"Dr. Collins has written that science makes belief in God 鈥渋ntensely plausible鈥� 鈥� the Big Bang, the fine-tuning of nature鈥檚 constants, the emergence of complex life, the effectiveness of mathematics, all suggest the existence of a 鈥渓oving, logical and consistent鈥� God. But when challenged with alternative accounts of these phenomena 鈥� or with evidence that suggests that God might be unloving, illogical, inconsistent or, indeed, absent 鈥� Dr. Collins will say that God stands outside of Nature, and thus science cannot address the question of his existence at all."

or

"Most scientists who study the human mind are convinced that minds are the products of brains, and brains are the products of evolution. Dr. Collins takes a different approach: he insists that at some moment in the development of our species God inserted crucial components 鈥� including an immortal soul, free will, the moral law, spiritual hunger, genuine altruism, etc."

Is Harris objecting to Collins being a theist or to Collins being unable to keep is beliefs out of his job? Harris' piece reads to me like it is the latter. Has he objected to theists in other high scientific positions who don't mix their religion with their work? Can anyone name an example?
If Harris' objection was to Collins being a theist that would be bad on the basis of principle and also impractical in a much believing country like the US. But I don't see much wrong with his objections to Collins' mixing of his personal beliefs with his job. If someone brings their scientifically unsubstantiable views into the realm of science, then that should count against them.

Going beyond Harris' NY Times piece, Collins has a website (put up with money from (who else) the Templeton foundation), Bio Logos. On it, he peddles the usual accomodationist stuff. But it went a bit further at first. Initially, the site advocated, believe it or not, the creationist rubbish argument from the second law of thermodynamics. It

"There is a law of physics called the Second Law of Thermodynamics that states an isolated system鈥檚 entropy can never decrease, it can only increase or stay the same. In other words, all changes in isolated systems lead to states of higher disorder. Therefore, the same must be true of our entire universe. However, it is also known that the formation of stars and galaxies, essential for the development of life on Earth, requires a high degree of order. This implies that the universe was once much more ordered than it is now, and therefore it began with a very low entropy."

The Bio Logos page has since then been edited and the creationist argument from the second law of thermodynamics has been removed. It has been replaced by fine tuning constants babble etc. So it's a good thing we are living in the internet age, where what people say on the net is on the record. As such things show that Collins' religious views, intermixing with science, do deserve to be viewed with suspicion. When someone goes outside his field of expertise and echoes a creationist claptrap argument to prop up their own beliefs, that is not good if that person is about to be handed the keys to NIH.

GB, your honesty that theists *sometimes* make good objective scientists is encouraging:]

I have to say though, I could see how *you* would find difficulty with Collin's attempts to merge current scientific knowledge with Genesis 1&2.

But "God of the gaps" is a just a bit unfair, if anything the BioLogos movement had attempted to distance itself from the ID movement for this very reason. Pertaining to this, it has left its ideas on abiogenesis open to future scientific discovery, rather than making it a "gap" filled in by supernatural intervention by God.

Point accepted?

Ephraim, I don't think that point is accepted at all - Collins has made numerous statements whereby gaps in our knowledge are to be seen as hidey-holes for his peek-a-boo space pixie, and that is really not on. You don't (usually) catch theistic scientists at such nonsense. Ken Miller wouldn't be seen *dead* coming out with that nonsense, nor Francisco Ayala, nor dear old George Coyne.

Having said that, I admire Francis as a scientist and a colleague, and he is definitely a good administrator (he occasionally needs a nudge in the right direction, as anyone who followed the genome sequencing shenanigans can tell you - he very nearly sold the genome down the river to Craig Venter). I do think he's a good choice for the post, but he really does need to wise up about this evangelical nonsense.

I think Will is grossly misrepresenting Sam Harris and the other atheist commentators on this. Francis's *theism* is not the issue for atheists - it is his multiple silly evangelical outbursts. If he can rein them in, that's great. Otherwise, he's going to keep coming out with these embarrassing gaffes, and causing facepalms all over the health science sector.

Helio.. could you substanciate what you believe the "hidey-holes" are that Collins/Biologos is filling with Divine *supernatural* intervention?

As far as I understand the two instances were they believe this has happened are..

[1] The big bang/origin of the universe
[2] The origin of humanities moral law/spirituality/self consciousness

Would you afford other scientists' "multiple silly evangelical outbursts" when of a fundamentalist atheistic worldview the same judgement?

I guess the point I am making is what and when do you feel it becomes unreasonable for someone to promote their worldview, using their position in biological science or whatever their chosen field may be?

is Harris objecting to Collins being a theist or to Collins being unable to keep is beliefs out of his job? Harris' piece reads to me like it is the latter. Has he objected to theists in other high scientific positions who don't mix their religion with their work? Can anyone name an example?

But surely Atheism is a faith position also Peter / Is Richard Dawkins not doing the same thing, albeit from a different perspective, by using science to promote Atheism ?

I've been told often enough, that science takes NO position on the supernatural.

Hello peterJhenderson,

"I've been told often enough, that science takes NO position on the supernatural."

You mean no position other than saying we have no evidence to suggest that there is such a thing at all?

And what exactly is the question of whether atheism is a faith or not (btw, no) have to do with Harris objecting to theists in general or just those who mix their theism with their job (the bit you quoted from me)?

And btw, regarding "the debacle demonstrates that atheism can be every bit as intolerant as religion"....

can anyone imagine what would happen if an outspoken atheist, who injects atheism into his professional lectures etc, were the nominee to head NIH? Sofar the fallout over Collins that I am aware of consists mainly of the piece by Harris and attention paid to it in the blogosphere by people like Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers etc. In the reverse scenario where it was an outspoken atheist, there would be uproar, the news would be packed with footage of members of Congress pushing each other aside to get to the microphone first to denounce whoever it would be, it could be real political trouble for the Obama administration and there would be no end to the line of commentators on tv and in all papers saying how wrong it is for said person to voice his atheist views while wearing his professional hat as NIH director.

So one piece in the NY Times voicing very reasonable concerns and attention paid to it in the blogosphere is very modest compared to what the religious horde would be up to in the reverse scenario.

Well, Ephraim, since those areas are very hot topics of research (human behavioural psychology and deep cosmology), and Collins seems to be of the opinion that these are solved issues (solved in favour of a divine spark or some such), then I think it's pretty clear that my point stands.

What I will suggest is that these are "black boxes", and it does no-one any favours to say what is inside the box. Given that the gods have been chased out of the weather and out of psychiatric illness and out of major historical events, there seems little reason to postulate that a few straggling pixies are hiding in these particular black boxes. Yet that is what Collins has done. Bless him.

You mean no position other than saying we have no evidence to suggest that there is such a thing at all?

I would say that science takes an agnostic view of the supernatural, not an atheistic one. At least that has always been my experience in science.

can anyone imagine what would happen if an outspoken atheist, who injects atheism into his professional lectures etc, were the nominee to head NIH?

What's the NIH Peter ?

Are Dawkins, Myers, and Coyne not already doing this in their lectures ?

Hello peterJhenderson,

"I would say that science takes an agnostic view of the supernatural, not an atheistic one. At least that has always been my experience in science."

Word technicality. I'm not 100% sure there is no god, I see no credible evidence for it. A subtle difference, but important in this case. Formally, it would make me an agnostic, not an atheist. In that formal sense, that everyone sweeps under the carpet in everyday language, it may indeed be better to say science is agnostic rather than atheistic. But for practical intents and purposes they mostly overlap.

"What's the NIH Peter ?"

National Institute of Health, which has an annual budget of several dozen billion. Among its activities it provides much medical research funding. So the idea of a director who might not see a need for certain areas of research, because he thinks the answer is already there (Goddunnit) is worrying. One would hope that his personal views would never come to be reflected in NIH policy. How much would you trust a zealous evangelical christian not to try at least a tiny, little bit?
Although the risk of Collins tainting NIH policy is far lower than the more likely scenario where he just uses his position to shove christianity down peoples throats at highly inappropriate venues. He would have plenty of manouvering room for the latter, not much for the former.

For eight years under the Bush administration and despite the protests of many prominent Republicans, research funded by the United States Federal government into the possibilities of using embryonic stem cells for curing human disease were severely impacted because those in a position of power thought it immoral to use cells that under certain conditions might have developed into a human being. These cells available from sources for various reasons were instead discarded. It was not illegal to perform this research but the government only funded research from I think only 55 already existing lines of cells. Scientists in the field considered this severely and unreasonably restrictive. Because this source of funding is so important to many organizations like universities where major scientific breakthroughts occur, that research was impacted delaying the day when the promise of cures saving countless lives might have been realized. It is time for the kind of people who think this way be excluded from positions where they can stand in the way of progress. Many of us have had more than our fill of this kind of warped mentality. The article hit the bullseye.

To echo and expand upon some of what MAII said, several prominent US scientists moved abroad when the research Marcus mentioned was so severely restricted. I remember a 大象传媒 report during the 2008 US presidential election. It mentioned how some research groups were expecting a brain drain from the UK if Obama were to win, because some of these scientists might go back to the US.

That should hopefully help end anyones delusions that science and religion go together smoothly.

William's approach to this piece is quite pernicious.Note how he moves the specific scientific case that Sam deals with, to the general one of any public appointment that requires a moral judgement.The full Sam Harris argument, as opposed to the truncated version that appears in the New York Times, is available on the Richard Dawkins website.It is well worth reading.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

It is.

Well, the full article is certainly more interesting, however could someone please explain the actual objection to me. If mere theism isn't the problem, what exactly is.

So the idea of a director who might not see a need for certain areas of research, because he thinks the answer is already there (Goddunnit) is worrying.

Have you any evidence that Francis Collins has, or is likely to attempt this Peter ? If he did, I'd be with you on this one. He should be sacked for incompetence.

OK, special treat for Petermorrow - I've removed the comments restriction on my highly experimental (and very infrequently updated) blog - I'll see about setting up a post on old Francis, as I think he has a lesson to teach Christian Atheists about what we're up against... Actually, maybe I should restrict it to people called Peter :-)

Thanks Helio

Actually, maybe I should restrict it to people called Peter

Only Peters need apply then !

For some reason, my moniker in #14 was replaced by "you"....what happened?

Marcus

"For some reason, my moniker in #14 was replaced by "you"....what happened?"

I'm quite sure there's a scientific explanation for your trouble. Failing that you might have to opt for an 'act of God'.

Hello peterJhenderson,

"Have you any evidence that Francis Collins has, or is likely to attempt this Peter ? If he did, I'd be with you on this one. He should be sacked for incompetence."

In his previous job as head of the human genome project there would have been little scope for it, I guess. Would he try as head of NIH? Time will tell, I have no hard evidence obviously. Based on some of his statements, only suspicions for now. I hope it stays that way. If it did for a long tie, I might dump the suspicions too at some point.

As I said above, I actually think he's a good choice. But he does need to sharpen up his brain a bit. Maybe we all do.

Hi. New here. Small point, but I realise I'm probably too late. You say that Harris regards Collins as a dangerous appointment for "the moral health of the American nation". I'm sorry, but where exactly does he say that? You go on: "Presumably, if Harris's argument were to be accepted, no theists should be appointed to any public position requiring them to take any moral decisions."

I thought Harris made it quite clear that his objection to Collins was n the basis that he might well bring his Christian morality to bear on the decisions he makes on the future of biomedical research in the US - where it has no place. At all. That is for boards of ethics.

Harris also makes clear that Collins' Christianity rather quenches the sort of thirst for knowledge that should be a prerequisite for that kind of job - backed up with a quote from Collins to that effect.

Sorry, Will. I have no idea what your religious beliefs are, but you are putting words into Harris's mouth here on the first point, and then flying off on a tangent with the second part of your point.

Could do better.

AboutFace

Hi.

Whatever you think of William's piece, your comments regarding the 'problem' with the appointment are certainly clear enough. And go some way to answering my question in #19

You say, "...he might well bring his Christian morality to bear on the decisions he makes on the future of biomedical research in the US - where it has no place. At all."

But could you possibly expand on your thinking? What do you mean by 'Christian morality'. What if ethical decisions look like 'Christian morality' but are determined by non christians, what if members of boards of ethics are motivated by 'Christian morality' or are christians themselves? What do you mean by, "no place. At all."? What moral basis, parameters, outlook etc. do you propose instead? How do you distinguish between 'Christian morality' and, not 'Christian morality'?

And surely all this relates in some way to William's comment, "...no theists should be appointed to any public position requiring them to take any moral decisions."? I mean it is the issue of morality you are emphasising.

I take it Collins got the job?

But of course. I do think Sam is worrying over nothing.