Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Nature Editorial Attacks Christianity of Francis Collins

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Casey Luskin reports : Nature Immunology Editorial Botches American Law and Science Education

May, 2010 editorial in Nature Immunology makes it clear that they don’t trust religious persons–even those who are neo-Darwinian evolutionists like Francis Collins–in positions of scientific authority. The editorial (written by the journal’s editors) states:

The openly religious stance of the NIH director [Francis Collins] could have undesirable effects on science education in the United States. … In the introduction and in interviews surrounding [Collins’] book release, he describes his belief in a non-natural, non-measurable, improvable deity that created the universe and its laws with humans as the ultimate aim of its creation. Some might worry that describing scientists as workers toiling to understand the laws and intricacies of this divine creation will create opportunities for creationism adepts.
….
Strikingly, despite being a world leader in science, the United States still struggles when it comes to scientific education. Creationism is creeping back into the science curricula of public schools. And although intelligent design, the latest form of creationism, suffered a major defeat in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial (Nat. Immunol. 7, 433–435, 2006), when the US Supreme Court ruled that including it in science curricula is unconstitutional, creationists are making a comeback.

(“Of faith and reason,” Nature Immunology, Vol. 11(5):357 (May 2010).)


The real issue is not creationism (in my humble opinion). They just hate people of faith, period! Francis Collins is a Darwinist, he defends Darwinism. Francis Collins has a PhD in Physics and Chemistry. When I heard him speak at George Mason, he listed his PhD in “Quantum Mechanics” which accords with his biographies elsewhere that list him as follows:

He went on to attain a Ph.D. in physical chemistry at Yale University in 1974. While at Yale, however, a course in biochemistry sparked his interest in the molecules that hold the blueprint for life: DNA and RNA. Collins recognized that a revolution was on the horizon in molecular biology and genetics. After consulting with his old mentor from the University of Virginia, Carl Trindle, he changed fields and enrolled in medical school at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, earning there an M.D. in 1977.

Collins has a PhD and MD, and he went on to head the human genome project. He’s 10 times more qualified than Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, and Jerry Coyne to do the work he is doing. But that’s not enough because in the eyes of some Darwinists (like Sam Harris and Jerry Coyne), believing in God disqualifies someone from being a leader in science.

The one encouraging bit of news is it appears the Darwinists really don’t think Dover has stopped the advance of intelligent design or “creationism”.

Addendum:
It just occurred to me that the editorial may be encouraging illegal activity. In the US, it is considered a violation of civil rights to discriminate against people of faith with respect to employment. Especially in the case of Francis Collins, there are hardly few, if any, more qualified for his job.

Comments
LouAnLai,
If one’s basic approach to any line of scientific enquiry is ‘God did it’ then you’re not being scientific (until the existence of God is proved, rather than assumed).
How many times, seriously, how many times, I would really like to know, must ID claim that the designer could've been many other things other than God? How may times before this argument stops being used? How many times must you and everyone else hear that the designer could've been many things before it sinks in? How many? I really want to know.....Clive Hayden
July 23, 2010
July
07
Jul
23
23
2010
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT
He’s been singled out for not signing the Manhattan Declaration, criticized for misunderstanding ID, and called incoherent for being a TE. Now he’s being lauded as a potential martyr for the Faith, one of the smartest people to ever walk the Earth. One wonders if some of you are talking about the same person.
He's all of the above. I don't see a problem. I point out where I disagree with Collins, and I point out when someone's civil rights (even though I disagree with them) are being infinged on. See: I greatly respect William Dembski
The Big Bang cries out for a divine explanation. It forces the conclusion that nature had a defined beginning. I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. Francis Collins
scordova
July 23, 2010
July
07
Jul
23
23
2010
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
Why does UD present such an inconsistent attitude toward Collins? He's been singled out for not signing the Manhattan Declaration, criticized for misunderstanding ID, and called incoherent for being a TE. Now he's being lauded as a potential martyr for the Faith, one of the smartest people to ever walk the Earth. One wonders if some of you are talking about the same person.riddick
July 23, 2010
July
07
Jul
23
23
2010
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT
Gaz, Not at all. Atheist use science to push their religion all the time. I assume they also are motivated to pursue what they view as truth.ellijacket
July 23, 2010
July
07
Jul
23
23
2010
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT
The principle ought to be fairly clear. If one's basic approach to any line of scientific enquiry is 'God did it' then you're not being scientific (until the existence of God is proved, rather than assumed).LuoAnLai
July 23, 2010
July
07
Jul
23
23
2010
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT
when the US Supreme Court ruled that including it [creationism] in science curricula is unconstitutional, creationists are making a comeback
That was referring to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard Dover vs. Kitzmiller was dealing with ID which is not the same as creationism.scordova
July 23, 2010
July
07
Jul
23
23
2010
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT
The editorial seems to echo Dawkins sentiments. Dawkins takes such exception to Collins' Biologos that he insist that if Collins doesn't disavow some of the articiles published at Biologos, that Collins is unfit for office:
Dear Dr Falk Certainly, I am happy to suggest that our website people might post your article, and I am copying this letter to them to call it to their attention. But I didn't misunderstand Daniel Harrell's essay. It never for a moment occurred to me that he, or Biologos, could possibly be supporters of Option #1. Of course I understood that he was advocating the marginally less fatuous Option #2. It was Option #2 that I was referring to as 'ridiculous', because it is an attempt to reconcile science with the book of Genesis. Why on Earth would anyone want to reconcile science with Genesis, given that there is no historical reason to suppose that the author of Genesis, a scientifically illiterate scribe writing probably as recently as the 8th century BC, had any knowledge or authority to pronounce on the subject of human origins? I still earnestly hope – and believe – that Francis Collins would disown the article, or at least feel embarrassed by it. If he would not, he is unfit to hold high office in the scientific establishment of the United States. Yours sincerely Richard Dawkins
see: http://biologos.org/blog/on-living-in-the-middle/</a? and http://richarddawkins.net/articles/483226-on-living-in-the-middlescordova
July 23, 2010
July
07
Jul
23
23
2010
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT
deric davidson (13), I disagree with the Nature editorial and the perception that those of faith ought not be in charge at origanisation like NIH, provided their faith doesn't interfere with their work. But I also disagree with your statement: "Search for Truth in nature from my experience is motivated by religious belief not stiffled by it." This implies that atheists aren't motivated to search for truth in nature. I assume you don't mean that?Gaz
July 23, 2010
July
07
Jul
23
23
2010
04:02 AM
4
04
02
AM
PDT
So how many great (iconic) scientists of past centuries would have been excluded from positions of scientific authority because they believed in God? Many I would suggest. Do applicants for science positions now have to tick a box on application forms marked - Do you believe in God? What a joke. Search for Truth in nature from my experience is motivated by religious belief not stiffled by it.deric davidson
July 23, 2010
July
07
Jul
23
23
2010
01:27 AM
1
01
27
AM
PDT
This strikes me as similar to what happened with Sir Fred Hoyle. Richard Dawkins coined the term "Hoyle's Fallacy", discrediting him, even though Sir Fred was an evolutionist and very well respected scientist. Sir Fred advocated panspermia, rejecting the idea that life originated on Earth, but promoted the idea that life 'evolved' in space (hence his work Evolution from Space), and also believed in biological evolution on Earth once life arrived from space. So, Sir Fred may not have been a 'purist' evolutionist from a conventional (neo-) Darwinist perspective today, but was an evolutionist nonetheless. Today's evolutionists have generally and unfairly discredited Sir Fred as an evolutionist because his ideas sound too much like intelligent design for their inflexible naturalistic comfort zone. One doesn't even have to be a person "of faith" to be kicked out of the naturalist camp, if their ideas give any credibility at all to the existence of God! For more on what leading evolutionists observe, along with how and why they refuse to believe the obvious, see Intelligent Design vs. Evolution — The Miracle of Intelligent Design.Miracles God
July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
11:59 PM
11
11
59
PM
PDT
Nature editorials, eh?anonym
July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT
David Heddle points out Sam Harris behavior on the issue. It is applicable to the Editorial: Sad Case of Sam Harris
People like Sam Harris, Jerry Coyne, and P.Z. Myers are bigots. Polished and educated for sure, but bigots nonetheless. In other times and in other places we have heard their vile arguments in different forms. Yes he is a qualified scientist but he is a evangelical Christian… was Yes he is a qualified scientist but he is a Jew… Or I have no objections to interracial marriage, but think of how hard it will be for the children… etc.
and
Sam Harris has written yet another iteration of his same-ole, same-ole argument that Francis Collins is unfit to serve as director of the National Institutes of Health. Why? Because Collins is a strong, vocal, evangelical Christian. A don’t-ask-don’t-tell Christian would be OK, so it's *cough* not about Collins being a Christian. It is about him being an uppity, arrogant, loud-mouthed, in-your-face Christian who is not a credit to his religion and doesn’t know how to keep in his place. Why someone who is open about his beliefs is not acceptable while someone who keeps them in secret is acceptable is only understood when you realize that Harris hates Christianity. When it cannot be ignored, he goes on the offensive. It is said that northern racists don't care how far blacks make it, as long as they don’t live near them. Harris (and Coyne and Myers) are more like the southern racist who doesn’t mind living next to a black man, as long as he remembers his proper station in life. Although making the same case he always does, this particular essay by Harris is uncharacteristically poorly written. Consider this non sequitur near the beginning:
Even religious extremists value some of the products of science—antibiotics, computers, bombs, etc.—and these seeds of inquisitiveness, we are told, can be patiently nurtured in a way that offers no insult to religious faith.
Yeah—so what? This is akin to the there are no atheists in a foxhole aphorism. It has absolutely nothing to do with Collins’s qualifications to lead the NIH. Harris expresses, with grave concern:
Just imagine how scientific it would seem if Collins, as a devout Hindu, informed his audience that Lord Brahma had created the universe and now sleeps; Lord Vishnu sustains it and tinkers with our DNA (in way that respects the law of karma and rebirth); and Lord Shiva will eventually destroy it in a great conflagration.
First of all this is a fallacious (and common, in this debate), good-for-the-goose, good-for-the-gander argument. It is of the form: Those damn hypocritical Christians would be apoplectic if a devout Moslem was nominated for the NIH position. Yes, some of them would—but their postulated error cannot be recycled (pre-cycled?) as a reason to argue against Collins. Sammy—you have heard the one about two wrongs not making a right? Right? It truth, if Collins were a Hindu (to take Harris’s example) it would make not a bit of difference. As for any government job, the relevant criteria can be summarized as 1) Are you the most qualified applicant? 2) Are you permitted to work, legally, in the United States? 3) Do you currently engage or have you engaged in any disqualifying illegal activities? and 4) Are you engaged in any secret financial or personal hobbies that might render you a national security risk? Science more or less dispenses with all criteria except number one. Science is a meritocracy, one of the few true meritocracies. What has always been relevant in science is: what is the quality of your work? and, to a lesser extent, what is the volume of your work? On the sole count of what is actually relevant for holding a scientific position Harris, in a rare display of integrity, or more likely a calculated display of faux integrity, writes, (in what should be the entirety of his essay):
One must admit that his [Collins’s] credentials are impeccable: he is a physical chemist, a medical geneticist, and the former head of the Human Genome Project
You can just about detect the regret and reluctance with which Harris must concede this inconvenient fact—which he never mentions again and treats as totally incidental. He only turns his head aside and burps it out, one can speculate, for CYA purposes. I wasn’t unfair to Collins. I mentioned he was qualified. Aren’t I the even-handed one? The rest of the Harris’s essay is devoted to Collins’s Christianity. ... Show, don’t tell What about evidence? Anyone have any actual evidence that Collins’s religiosity renders him unfit to lead the NIH? Harris? Coyne? Myers? Anyone? I have repeatedly asked, on some enormously popular websites such as Myers’s own Pharyngula, for someone, anyone, to demonstrate the science/faith incompatibility charge. The people making this claim are supposed to be scientists or at least scientifically literate. They should understand that that a hypothesis than cannot lend itself to testing is inherently unscientific. As many of you know, I proposed a test: I would provide ten peer-reviewed scientific papers, five from believers and five from unbelievers. If the charge that religion and science are incompatible is more than just words, we can posit that it should be possible to detect which papers are polluted by the author’s religion. No one has ever accepted the challenge.
scordova
July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT
If belief that God organized the universe is a matter of faith, why isn't the materialist belief that the universe came together by some accidental, mechanical process also a matter of faith? (Or, the Buddhist belief in self-organization.) How does faith in recognized authority differ from religious faith? http://30145.myauthorsite.com/Bertvan
July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT
This is just disgusting, I'm sorry. What place do these charlatans have in attacking an appointed NIH director on religious grounds? Is this even legal? But the again, how does faith in materialism along with the dogmas of the new atheist religion qualify all these charlatans in having a place in the sciences? And who is the real religious fundamentalist here?above
July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT
The real issue is not creationism (in my humble opinion). They just hate people of faith, period!
Really? Have you met any of them? Have you seen that look of pure hatred in their eyes every time they talk to a Christian? They may not like the idea of Christianity creeping into the classroom, but to accused them of hating all people of faith is nothing short of ridiculous. I would wager that there is at least one Christian on their own editorial board, or failing that, there are no doubt several Christians working in close proximity to them at the journal. Do they hiss and spit every time they walk past one of them?tyke
July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT
I'll answer my own question. The supreme court never heard the case. There is a huge difference between the District Court and the US Supreme Court.Collin
July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT
This one is as plain a case of ideological antipathy imposed by overweening arrogance of evolutionary materialists as it gets. let's hear Lewontin inadvertently let the cat out of the bag again: _________________ >>. . . to put a correct view of the universe into people's heads we must first get an incorrect view out . . . the problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth [which is of course a philosophical truth and knowledge claim, so it refutes itself]. . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists, it is self-evident [yup, triumphalistic circular thinking can seem self-evident] that the practices of science [cf below on just how he wants science practiced, and ask yourself whether a priori materialist censorship is going to help with unfettered truth seeking] provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality, and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [surely, you mean self-refuting evolutionary materialism?]. . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [“Billions and Billions of Demons,” NYRB, January 9, 1997.] >> __________________kairosfocus
July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT
In case some Theistic Evolutionists haven't noticed yet....materialists make strange bedfellows. They will only tolerate theistic evolutionists (like Collins) because they object to ID. However, they will not endorse theistic evolution either. In the theistic evolutionist' naive attempt to make peace with both sides, he is blind to the reality that one of those sides will, by necessity, try to silence the theistic evolutionist someday at sometime.Bantay
July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT
The one encouraging bit of news is it appears the Darwinists really don’t think Dover has stopped the advance of intelligent design or “creationism”.
Yep, a judge reading verbatim a Darwinist-supplied verdict apparently does not actually have any bearing on an on-going argument, especially when the judge almost certainly does not understand the core argument of one of the sides. And yes, what the editors are attempting to do is certainly illegal. I don't think they'll succeed, though. If they do get him ousted, the lawsuits will rain down on them.
n the introduction and in interviews surrounding [Collins'] book release, he describes his belief in a non-natural, non-measurable, improvable deity that created the universe and its laws with humans as the ultimate aim of its creation.
i.e., his faith fails the screening of Strong Rationalism. But then again everything does, including strong rationalism! Since they have the faith to think that natural evolution can constantly create engineering masterpieces that dwarf what we are capable of, I can't say that I'm surprised to read something like this from them.uoflcard
July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT
Wait, the Supreme Court ruled in Dover? I thought it was never appealed from District Court.Collin
July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
I just added the following to the posting:
Addendum: It just occurred to me that the editorial may be encouraging illegal activity. In the US, it is considered a violation of civil rights to discriminate against people of faith with respect to employment. Especially in the case of Francis Collins, there are hardly few, if any, more qualified for his job.
scordova
July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT
I also highly doubt I'd ever see the following modification of the editorial's headline were an atheist to take the position: The openly irreligious stance of the NIH director could have undesirable effects on science education in the United StatesTsinadree
July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT
Indeed, people of faith are the real target here. I would highly doubt the editors would decry an outspoken atheist like Richard Dawkins in that position. This quote from above says it all "...he describes his belief in a non-natural, non-measurable, improvable deity."Tsinadree
July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply