Re: Collins to head NIH?

On 2009-07-10, snex <xens@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 10, 10:58 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
snex wrote:
On Jul 10, 10:40 am, Eric Root <er...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 10, 2:11 am, snex <x...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 9, 5:54 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
"snex" <x...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 9, 5:01 pm, r norman <r_s_nor...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What evidence can you provide that Collins as head of NIH would
produce a "pro-religion stance" in the administration, at least any
more than the religious professions of the President, himself?
perhaps you didnt notice that collins runs a website dedicated to
exactly that.
Presumably you are referring to this:
http://biologos.org/about
Incidentally, it might have been more polite to provide the link yourself.
It might be polite to also sketch your reasons for suggesting that the
purpose of this website/organization is exactly to 'produce a "pro-religion
stance" in the administration'.  
I also notice that snex has avoided responding directly to me. Let me
piggyback in an attempt to get him to answer what I think is the crucial
question:
Just what do you think should be done? Do you propose that anyone who is
religious should be barred from science, or from science administration?
That seems to be the implication. And that would be both
unconstitutional and morally wrong. But failing that, what do you want?
how about we do the same thing to scientists who hold racist views, or
believe in astrology, or promote homeopathic medicine? ridicule them
until they learn to stop wearing these stupid ideas on their shoulders
like a badge. it should be an embarrassment for a man of science to
admit that he thinks a virgin woman gave birth 2000 years ago because
some book and "tradition" told him so.
It evidently is no embarrassment to you to wearing the stupid idea on
your shoulder that it is all right to be a mean-spirited, intolerant
jerk.  Which, by the way, is strictly constructive criticism.

come off your high horse. you treat creationists the exact same way,
and you would be just as vocal about it were one of them being
appointed to this position. you just want to pretend that your silly
beliefs are somehow better than theirs and dont deserve the same
ridicule. sorry, but youre wrong.

The ability to recognize distinctions is an important tool of reason. If
Collins were a creationist, it would be right to oppose his appointment,
because his creationism would be certain to affect his science and his
administration. If he were a flying saucer nut, that wouldn't seem
relevant. Being a Christian is more akin to the flying saucer thing than
to the creationist thing -- not relevant to his performance. Now you can
try make an argument that his religion makes him a poor administrator of
NIH, but the evidence of his past performance makes this unlikely.

you cant predict what new advances in science will come out and
potentially offend him.

Well, I'll agree that you can't, but that's probably because you're
not familiar with science in general or his work in particular.

Having read his CV, and having a better than passing familiarity with
a couple of scientific disciplines, I would say the chances of him
being offended by any scientific advance are zero.

Feel free to argue otherwise. Or stamp you feet some more. Up to you.


what if an adequate explanation for the
evolution of human morality comes out?

It already has.

I went to scholar.google.com and typed in "evolution of morality".
There are over 1000 hits.

Collins points out that this work is incomplete. And he's right.
But his faith isn't so weak that a full explanation would rattle it.


will collins change his story
or will he adamantly deny the science and refuse to fund it?

Can you point to any example during his very long and public career
where he has interfered with science that might conflict with his
belief?

No, of course you can't. You're trusting your faith again.

what if
time travel is invented

I think you've just disqualified yourself from any serious discussion
on science. But thanks for dropping by.

<snip>

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Collins to head NIH?
    ... Francis Collins has reportedly been picked to head the ... its funny how you cry like a bitch when PZ myers says religion is ... they *do* affect his views about the work of other scientists. ... even if his views did not crisscross with science *at ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Collins to head NIH?
    ... Francis Collins has reportedly been picked to head the ... its funny how you cry like a bitch when PZ myers says religion is ... they *do* affect his views about the work of other scientists. ... that uses science to answer the questions that science is good ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Collins to head NIH?
    ... Francis Collins has reportedly been picked to head the ... religion is false and that we owe it no respect until it ... they *do* affect his views about the work of other scientists. ... camp that uses science to answer the questions that science is ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Collins to head NIH?
    ... Francis Collins has reportedly been picked to head the ... religion is false and that we owe it no respect until it ... they *do* affect his views about the work of other scientists. ... even if his views did not crisscross with science *at ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Collins to head NIH?
    ... Francis Collins has reportedly been picked to head the ... they *do* affect his views about the work of other scientists. ... even if his views did not crisscross with science *at ... "religion," you seem to think its fine and dandy. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading