Posted on 07/22/2009 9:00:33 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
July 20, 2009 — He’s a Christian, yes, but he is also a leading American scientist and a harsh critic of intelligent design. He supports research on embryonic stem cells and upholds Darwin’s theory of evolution completely. That’s not enough to get Francis Collins off the hook with the scientific establishment. Both Nature and Science expressed “serious misgivings” with his nomination as head of the National Institutes of Health, even though as the able administrator of the Human Genome Project his scientific credentials have been exceptional.
Collins is open about his evangelical Christian faith, but his book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, “describes ... how he reconciles this with the science of evolution.”4 He used Templeton Prize funds to start the BioLogos institute that discusses issues of faith and science. His theistic-evolutionary views have drawn criticism from leaders in the intelligent design movement for embracing Darwinism from start to finish and scrambling Biblical theology.1 Collins’s view of theistic evolution leaves little room for God as an intelligent designer. He remains at odds with intelligent design leaders. In addition, he will be stepping down from BioLogos for his NIH term. Leading Darwinists remain hostile in spite of all of these things. Here are criticisms from Nature last week...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
ping!
Thanks for the ping!
And what do our own Geocentrist Creationists think of you Heliocentric “compromisers”?
They think you set the word of man above the word of God.
Seems that despite a few cranks objecting, Dr. Collins has risin to the top of his profession and is getting apointments and accolades. Wow, seems like he has been quite the victim of persecution due to his belief in God....NOT!
“His theistic-evolutionary views have drawn criticism from leaders in the intelligent design movement for embracing Darwinism from start to finish and scrambling Biblical theology.”
I thought that ID was simply a re-branding of theistic evolution. Why would ID leaders be upset?
Just another example of the fact that Christianity and a belief in God on the one hand, and evolution on the other, are NOT mutually exclusive.
Those who deplore his position are not motivated by science, but by bigotry, atheism and political corrrectness.
ID posits actual intelligent designs in nature. Francis Collins, and other extreme theistic evos grant macro evolution in toto. Namely that all appearances of super-sophisticated biological design are just an illusion, and are really the product of random mutations plus survival. And yet, not even theistic evos who give away the store are tolerated by the Temple of Darwin. It's all (meaning “Ditch your God!”) or nothing for these intolerant cultists.
They are not interested in freedom of thought and parity in the marketplace of ideas. Instead they will only be satisfied when there is no dissent and only the party line is allowed to be espoused anywhere.
Nobody's claiming there aren't any cranks or adamant atheists among scientists. But it's a shame that in your zeal to prove there's some kind of monolithic "temple of Darwin," that those people represent the views of all scientists, you are led into promoting dishonesty.
Did you even bother to read the CEH article? If so, how could you call it “dishonest” after reading the following?:
‘Jocelyn Kaiser, who wrote the two Science articles, might argue that she ended with quotes praising Collins and discounting the worries of the naysayers. But her title, “Questions About the Language of God,” and the prominence she gave to the criticisms of Collins (all from prominent atheists), leaves a strong bitter taste of “serious misgivings” about Collins – or anyone in science who espouses Christian faith, no matter how accommodating to Darwinism it might be.’
And why, I might add, are you ok with our nation’s top evo journals treating as normal religious bigots who are opposed to Collin’s nomination because he goes to church on Sunday???
Not all christians are christians..
You put kittens in a muffin tin that dont make them muffins..
LOL!
Yes, I read it. I don't comment on things I haven't read. But I can't read the Science article, so I can't verify that their characterization of the article is accurate--that it "leaves a strong bitter taste." I certainly don't think titling the article “Questions About the Language of God” when the subject's best-known book is called The Language of God reveals much in the way of bias.
And why, I might add, are you ok with our nation’s top evo journals treating as normal religious bigots who are opposed to Collin’s nomination because he goes to church on Sunday???
I'm ok with science magazines interviewing scientists about scientific issues. Again, without reading the articles, I don't know what their objections are--I doubt any of them said it was "because he goes to church on Sunday."
“Francis Collins, and other extreme theistic evos grant macro evolution in toto.”
So then, where does the “theistic” fit in? Correct me if I’m wrong, but ID proposes a Darwinism with no strings also. I thought that ID said, in essence, “Macro-evolution is true but way-back-when God made a big explosion (bang) and set it all (including macro-evolution) in motion”. Pretty much the definition of theistic evolution. Yes?
I’d say both Science articles defend and praise Collins.
This article IDs Richard Dawkins and Paul Z. Myers and says their misgivings are based on “little evidence”.
Questions About the Language of God
Jocelyn Kaiser
Although many scientists say geneticist Francis Collins will make a superb director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), not everyone is celebrating. A discussion about whether Collins’s very public religious views will influence his leadership of NIH played out on blogs early this spring and again in the past week. There seems to be little evidence for such worries, but they persist.
Collins has written that his beliefs played a role in the 2000 White House press conference to announce the draft sequence of the human genome, when President Bill Clinton called the human DNA sequence “the language in which God created life.” In 2006, Collins wrote a book, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, that describes his religious conversion at the age of 27 and how he reconciles this with the science of evolution. Richard Dawkins, the biologist and prominent antireligionist, feuded with Collins for mixing science and faith.
This spring, Collins raised hackles again when he and several other scientists launched a foundation and Web site, BioLogos, which claims that it “emphasizes the compatibility of Christian faith with scientific discoveries about the origins of the universe and life.” Funded by the Templeton Foundation, which supports projects at the intersection of science and religion (including at AAAS, Science’s publisher), BioLogos answers faith-related questions and links to a blog by its founders.
As weeks passed with Collins the rumored nominee to head NIH but no announcement, some speculated that BioLogos might be an obstacle. One prominent critic, Paul Z. Myers, a biologist at the University of Minnesota, Morris, who runs the anticreationist blog Pharyngula, faults Collins for suggesting that altruism cannot be explained by evolution and instead came from God. “Collins has got some big gaps in his understanding of the field of evolutionary biology,” Myers says. In comments this spring on Pharyngula, others fretted that Collins’s beliefs could influence his decisions on topics such as stem cells and sex research.
But others have pointed out that Collins’s record as director of the genome institute doesn’t support such fears. And some scientists active in the anticreationist movement approve of his attempts to reach out to the faithful. Evolutionary geneticist Wyatt Anderson of the University of Georgia in Athens says he read Collins’s book, and “I get the picture of a very rational scientist.” Josh Rosenau, public information project director of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, California, says: “It’s very useful to have scientists out there like Francis Collins to talk about their beliefs and why they don’t see them as in conflict with science.”
As of last week, Collins is now only “minimally involved” with BioLogos, says his wife, Diane Baker, a BioLogos board member. She says he plans to step down from the foundation once the Senate has confirmed his nomination and that he will decline any speaking engagements or efforts to promote BioLogos.
I’ll just post the first 4 paragraphs of this one.
White House Taps Former Genome Chief Francis Collins as NIH Director
Jocelyn Kaiser
President Barack Obama’s announcement last week that he had chosen Francis Collins to lead the National Institutes of Health (NIH) did not come as a big surprise. But it ended months of speculation and ignited a volley of flattering remarks from researchers and biomedical groups. “Francis is one of the most accomplished scientists and scientific leaders of his generation. ... Having worked with him for many years, I am sure that he will rise to the unique challenges of this job,” said Elias Zerhouni, who resigned as NIH director last fall.
Collins is known as a skilled administrator and excellent communicator. Over 15 years, he built a new center at NIH into one of the most visible and innovative institutes. When he stepped down as leader of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) last year, he was already considered a leading candidate to run NIH, the $30 billion parent agency.
Although few would disagree with a White House press notice saying that Collins’s work “has changed the very ways we consider our health and examine disease,” Collins does have critics. Some question his support of “big biology” in the genome project portfolio—with timetables and planned targets—and some are concerned about his outspoken Christian faith. He raised eyebrows, for example, when he recently launched a Web site, BioLogos, expanding on his 2006 book explaining how he reconciles his faith with the science of evolution (see sidebar).
Biomedical scientists are pleased, however, to have a permanent leader at NIH, which has been run by an acting director, Raynard Kington, since October. The agency is staggering under an unprecedented number of grant applications seeking to share in NIH’s $10 billion windfall from the economic stimulus package. When that money runs out in 2011, it’s unclear what will happen to stimulus-funded scientists. If it comes to a crunch, they could benefit from having an internationally renowned genome scientist as a spokesperson.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.