On the good side, it would be great if we had someone of the Collins type who could “speak science” to the religious.

assumes that religious folks are retarded simply because they’re religious. “Speaking science” has less to do with religious belief, and more to do with accessibility of concepts. You can be a fundamentalist doctor, know exactly how to do an abortion, and choose not to do one purely on religious grounds. Likewise, you can be fully qualified to work on stem cells, and decide on ethical grounds to work only with adult stem cells.

For example, two major concepts that many evangelicals like to champion are out:

He is a firm believer in evolution, an opponent of “intelligent design,” and dubious of the idea that life begins at the very moment of conception.

…and with respect to the scientific method, he’s pretty solid:

Most of the time, Collins starts with the science and then reconciles the religion with it. He argues, for example, that the early chapters of Genesis ought to be read figuratively and in total agreement with the astronomical explanation of the universe.

In fact, in this article, there are only two parts where the author has particular concerns: his belief that moral law is explained by the divine, and his desire to amalgamate religion with scientific observation.

In both cases, I just have to say: so what?

If Collins based his philosophy about social altruism on some other kind of minority opinion, would it really matter? Doubtful. Can administrators function in environments where they may not agree on a basic philosophical (and NOT moral) level with some of the activities that are going on? Sure. He’ll set policy, but to expect that he’ll put a big red “REJECTED” stamp on any research project that he doesn’t personally agree with is very unlikely.

With regards to the other arguments, I’m actually pretty struck with the fact that these folks are anti-religious bigots too. :) Most of this crap doesn’t really deserve much more of a response, except for this pesky little idea about human evolution.

I do find it interesting that Collins suggests that humans are not “evolving”. However, he does not suggest that MICROevolution is not occuring with humans. Even evangelicals that are committed to creationism cannot get away from population genetics, genetic drift, and so forth. You can still be a Discovery Institute fellow and understand why white moths turned black around English coal plants, or grasp why mutations for Tay-Sachs and sickle-cell anemia would spread in a population.

If he doesn’t believe that MACROevolution is occurring with humans… again, so what? We are essentially the same species now as we were 50,000 years ago, and we have far fewer environmental drivers to promote evolution and speciation in humans today than we did back then. Many popular ideas about human evolution tend to be associated more with Lamarckian concepts of evolution than anything else, and if evolution does turn humanity into a new species, you and I aren’t really going to be around to see it. Furthermore, I’d be very fascinated to see any example of realistic research that could predict human evolution into a separate species.

Therefore, you’re left at square one: he’ll sign on to research projects in evolutionary biology, but he might not agree with a science fiction story you write. Regardless, I STILL don’t see how these opinions are substantively different than opinions of any other scientist that may stray away from firm orthodoxy.

Finally, who cares how he explains the gaps? Everyone has their own personal philosophy. Unless you demonstrate how it affects his job, you don’t have a leg to stand on here.

http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/07/13/the-francis-collins-controversy/

Chris Wilson also wrote a useful editorial

http://www.slate.com/id/2222562/

Aren’t you concerned about the effect Francis’ religion could have on such issues as DwD and abortion? While he certainly will know the facts of science, much of that debate relates to such unprovable entities as the soul.

Again, I do not know this will be a problem, I would just rather have had someone of more scientific credibility in this critical scientific job.

The link was part of the google link I gave you before.

I am glad you are looking at it because it seems to me that this is very similar to many of your concerns. If you want other such disxcussions, there are many. Like PZ, few feel Frtancis is unfot, but there is a lot of concern.

If you want an example of how serious such discussion get, here in WASTATE we have an antiquated law that .. if read literally .. would ban any research with materials derived from (WASTATE) humans unless confidentiality was absolutely assured. I say “literally” because modern technology means, if we try hard enough, we can identify many kinds of human samples as coming from an individual .. including such commercial products as human blood proteins. OTOH, under current law, it is legal to use materials obtained from poltical prisoners in China, as long as we do not know where the companies got the material.

I have no real idea how you feel about such a law but it adds a large amount of cost to research in our state and, IMO, is immoral. Changing it will mean someone needs to have the skill and simple scientific honesty to explain the chemistry to the politicians. On the good side, it would be great if we had someone of the Collins type who could “speak science” to the religious. There actually is one such guy here .. a former fellow of mine, John Medina, a fundamentalist and a molecular biologist, teaches science at SPU.

Unfortunately, John Medina’s religion makes most of my community skeptical or even antagonistic toward him. Moreover, unlike Francis, John has never actually workled as a scientist (though he did direct a successful neurobiology effort using radical relgion funds here in Seatttle) so I doubt anyone will put John in a position where he could be effective in this way. Francis may be similarly limited, even if he means well, by his limited cred in the scientific community.

This link (linked from that original thread):

http://scienceblogs.com/evolgen/2008/01/francis_collins_should_not_be.php

has some evidence to back up the claim, although some people are defending Collins in the comments.

Now try reading the link

I may have mistyped?

As for the links .. they are there, you do not seem to want to follow them. so I will try a blockquote again:

I’ve been wrestling with how to respond to the imminent appointment of Francis Collins to the NIH, and it’s tough. The problem is that he has excellent qualifications for the position of chief paper-pusher and technician-wrangler, but that his position on religion is just plain weird. He’s a lovable dufus with great organizational skills who’s grasp of the principles of science is superficial. But you can’t just reject the guy because he’s religious; we’re in big trouble when we start using a religious litmus test for high political positions.

Oh, wait… ;we already do that. You know if someone with equivalent prestige and administrative credentials was even half as vocal about atheism as Collins is about Christianity, there’s no way she would even be considered for this appointment.

from http://atheistbus.ca/forum/showthread.php?p=5754

The comment right above it had a blockquote. Are you completely retarded?

Still no links. Up to 60 comments now.

Do you think he will be fair to that type of research?

What I think is that he’ll do his job. Every single person has their own beliefs about what is important, what theories and schools of thought are valid, and so forth. His policies will be different than other potential candidates, and they’ll be informed by his entire background, pretty much just like everyone else’s would be. But AGAIN, you haven’t proved that his biases will affect the way he does his job. I’d expect that, unless proven otherwise, he would view funding research into evolutionary psychology in the same way that any other good administrator would view research into theories that they don’t agree with: impartially.

Other candidates? Sure, there are probably many, many other good people out there. Probably some that are better than Collins. But yet again… what exactly is the difference with any one of a number of different nominations? You don’t always nominate the absolute best person for the position… you nominate the ones you can pass through.

Finally, assuming that he’s red meat thrown to right-wing wolves is idiotic… what exactly do you think that Obama would be getting in return? Yet again you bring up votes for healthcare, and yet again, I think you have an entirely overblown perspective on the political importance of the NIH to religious conservatives. I mean, the Huntsman appointment was a pretty good bone to throw, but what’s the use of someone that pretty much unknown to anyone outside of the science policy cognoscenti?