Re: Collins to head NIH?

On Jul 13, 8:23 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
snex wrote:
On Jul 12, 11:07 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
snex wrote:
On Jul 10, 8:24 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
snex wrote:
On Jul 10, 1:53 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
snex wrote:
On Jul 10, 11:53 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
snex 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. what if an adequate explanation for the
evolution of human morality comes out? will collins change his story
or will he adamantly deny the science and refuse to fund it?
Practically speaking, that doesn't sound like anything NIH would be
into. Same with your other examples, which are all farfetched and silly
to boot. Even if for some reason NIH were funding time travel or SETI,
there is no evidence that religion has ever distorted Collins' science.
You are grasping at weird straws here.
collins has stated that human morality cannot have evolved and
required god. thats the same argument being made by the discovery
institute!
That's guilt by association. How many logical fallacies do you intend to
trot out? And in what way will this belief affect his administration of NIH?
it is not at all guilt by association. collins does in fact use the
exact same argument that the discovery institute uses. "X couldnt have
evolved, therefore X was designed by a supernatural designer." thats
what he believes. thats what he has openly stated any time he has been
asked. and its rather hypocritical of you to not call bull*** on it.
In what way will this belief affect his administration of NIH?
in the same way that it would affect the administration of NIH as
performed by jonathan wells or william dembski. it is a piss-poor
argument, and it is anti-scientific.
You have a tendency to use opaque antecedents. What is a piss-poor
argument? What is anti-scientific? And do you honestly believe that
Collins, Wells, and Dembski would be equally qualified NIH heads?

"i dont see how X could have evolved or come about naturally,
therefore god did it." why do you think what they use for X matters?

Would Alfred Russell Wallace be disqualified from doing science in your
world? Collins has a few crazy ideas. None of them appear to affect his
science. On the other hand, the crazy ideas are all that Wells and
Dembski have. Do you see the difference?

Linus Pauling was a nut on the subject of vitamin C. Was he unqualified
to do chemistry? Roger Sperry was a nut on the subject of the 2nd Law of
Thermodynamics. Was he unqualified to do neuroscience?

all of the people you named are unqualified to be "the voice of
science" for america. let them stick to their narrow domains of
science all they want, and when they speak up with their nutty
opinions on other matters, we can tell them to go back to working on
what they are good at.

.

Loading