Sunday showdown: Both parties look to sway fence-sitters for this weekend's healthcare vote 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Obama appoints Christian to NIH
Obama has appointed Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project and author of The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, to head the National Institutes of Health.
Collins, once an atheist, eventually found “that one could build a very strong case for the plausibility of the existence of God on purely rational grounds.”
I have found there is a wonderful harmony in the complementary truths of science and faith. The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome. God can be found in the cathedral or in the laboratory. By investigating God’s majestic and awesome creation, science can actually be a means of worship.
He also began the BioLogos Foundation (highlighted previously on WMB), which drew controversy from both atheists and theists alike, for advocating the compatibility between theism and evolution.
EDITOR’S NOTE: WORLD’s Marvin Olasky reports on President Obama’s nomination of Francis Collins.
back to top34 Comments to “Obama appoints Christian to NIH”
Prediction: He will either one day resign or be fired over “policy differences” with BHO. If not those then he will sign-away his credibility for the acclaim of men. My prayer is that he will be a light in the darkness
Report comment to moderator
I’d rather see him on the President’s bio-ethics panel. That’s where his ethical voice and genetic experience is more needed.
I might be wrong, but my understanding is that NiH is a purely beurocratic appointment. I suspect this appointment is meant to appease conservatives who are unhappy with Obama replacing Bush’s conservative bio-ethics panel.
Report comment to moderator
What do you know, yet another post on the Christian scientist. He’s gained fame, fortune and position, not because of any real outstanding scientific achievement, (the human genome project was simply a complicated cataloging exercise), but because of the novelty of his Christian faith among scientists.
I agree with JJF, Obama should appoint the most qualified person, and not base his decision on his desire to pander to the political right.
BTW, the Human Genome Project was an earmark.
Report comment to moderator
KWatson:
I’m not saying Collins is unqualified for this position. I don’t know much about what the position entails, but my impression is that pretty much anybody with a science background and administrative skills would do. That leads me to suspect the Collins is meant to mollify the Right.
And they need some mollification. Obama should not have cleaned out the bio-ethics panel and replaced it with yes-men. Ideally, any president should have people from widely varying ethical perspectives on such a panel. Bush should have had some “it is our moral duty to mine stem cells for cures” people and Obama should have some “morally abhorrent to destroy fetuses to harvest stem cells” people.
A rubber-stamp ethics panel is just an insult to the very idea of ethical reasoning.
Report comment to moderator
According to Collins, Adam and Eve allegorically represent pre-human beings transformed into human beings at some point in the distant past by an act of God instilling into them human characteristics such as a soul. Nice try, but if Adam and Eve didn’t really exist and are mere allegory, then there would be no fall of man because there would have been no prior period of innocent obedience to God. Without the fall there’s no need for redemption, and no need for Jesus.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. I know that C. S. Lewis, for example, believed that as well. He certainly saw a need for Jesus.
Report comment to moderator
Kwatson: Actually Collins was a world class geneticist. He and his team (U of Michigan, I think) made great strides toward finding a gene thought to be causative of a major chronic disease of infants and children. CF or something like it, as I recall.
But since then he has indeed been a bureaucrat.
Report comment to moderator
Your right Arcadia, I was unfamiliar with his work before the Humane Genome Project. The point remains however, that of the 2000 members of The National Academy of Science, I bet he’s the only one that has multiple entries on WMB. When Obama named Hillary Clinton to be secretary of state, the headline wasn’t “Obama names Christian to state department”. Yet every time there’s a story about a Christian scientist it turns out to be about this same guy. If WMB wants us to believe that scientific accomplishment is compatible with a Christian world view, they should really try to avoid trumpeting the achievements of this one individual over and over again.
Report comment to moderator
Indeed, JJF and KWatson, if belief in a literal Adam and Eve is a prerequisite for Christianity, then there are very very few Christians in the world. Belief in a literal Adam and Eve is completely incompatible with scientific knowledge.
Report comment to moderator
DC Lawyer (#9),
That may be true in most of the world, but in the US, approximately half of the population holds the view that God created the Earth and everything in it within the past 10,000 years. Presumably most of these 150 million people are Christians.
http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm
Report comment to moderator
Talk about your identity politics — check out the title. Why not state that President Obama hired a qualfied scientist?
Report comment to moderator
Ironically Kwatson #8, most WMB authors/posters would probably oppose Dr. Collins’ views on evolution to one degree or another. So it’s actually something of a sign of open-mindedness…
Report comment to moderator
I’m with CB on this one.
Report comment to moderator
Kwatson (#3) stated that the human genome project was not a “real outstanding scientific achievement” and that it was just a “complicated cataloging exercise.” I suppose you could reduce any scientific effort to its nuts and bolts and dismiss it as something a chimpanzee could do.
The human genome project was much more than a cataloging effort, just like sending astronauts to the moon involved much more than strapping some men to a V-2 rocket. New technologies had to be developed, and specific genes were connected to specific traits (a work that continues).
Report comment to moderator
Many theistic evolutionists believe in a real Adam (created from the same stuff as the rest of creation, e.g. from the “dust of the Earth”) committing a real act of rebellion against God, resulting real consequences. The process of getting to the point of being “made in the image of God” doesn’t minimize the seriousness of sin or the need for a savior.
Report comment to moderator
I am pleased both to see that WMB has recognized the import of this appotinment and that Obama has chosen to make it. WMB celebrates Francis Collins as a Christian and it should be noted that at least in my scientific circles he is also a respected scientist. Indeed, some consider him somewhat of a hero by ensuring that the Human Genome project remained public, blunting the private effort to patent the DNA of humans.
To confirm my understandings, I rereviewed “Tha Language of God”. In rereading this, I found little which should be of serious concern for the scientific community. Collin’s appears to be a strong believer in the scientific method. He notes that the universe is perhaps 14 billion years old. He aappears to accept the big bang. It would seem that he believes in evolution. My only quibble of significance which I could find is that one I raised in an earlier post: I disagree with some of the technical details of Collin’s arguments regarding miracles. I suggest, however, that the nature of this disagreement would interest few outside certian scientific or statistical communities.
In short, this would appear to be an excellent appointment and, contrary to sawgunner’s syggestion in post 1, it would appear that there is in fact a great deal of commonality between Obama’s professed faith and data driven approaches and what I reviewed in Collin’s book. I suspect Collins and Obama will get along just fine.
Report comment to moderator
JJF post 4,
actually in certain respected scientific circles, it appears that Collins is highly regarded. My sense is that he is not a light weight in the scientific arena.
Report comment to moderator
MLTW #12, I Agree, Collins lives in two worlds that are often mutually exclusive. On one hand, by way of his intellect and training, he accepts the truth of evolution. On the other hand, he then suggests that Adam and Eve where probably australopithecine, which is rather non-scientific apologetics. Anyone who has a strong opinion on any of this will find something to criticize.
Kevin N #14, I didn’t mean to diminish his professional achievements. From what I know of his career, he’s an expert experimental / observational scientist of great accomplishment. He is not a renowned theoretician. He’s more like a supper engineer and engineering manager. He isn’t known for ground breaking theoretical work as are the vast majority of scientists you could probably name. He’s made his name by documenting the details of predictions of the true greats, Darwin among them. He is renowned for the fact that he is a Christian of scientific accomplishment, more than he’s renowned for the scientific accomplishment itself.
Report comment to moderator
KWatson post 18,
I found the following web site discussing Francis Collins most interesting:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/1030collins.asp
It would appear that this reports Collins as arguing that Genesis is purely metaphoric which matches my readings of Collins.
Can you provide a reference for your statement:
“On the other hand, he then suggests that Adam and Eve where probably australopithecine,”
I have been unable to find a reference for this.
Thanks in advance!
Report comment to moderator
The following article on a talk by Collins is also interesting:
Franics Collins speaks at Stanford
The review of Collins’ comments on intelligent design in this talk are also perhaps worthy of review.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, Most of the references I found where in Christian book reviews critical of Collins’ “The Language of God”.
I believe I recently heard him say it in a interview I saw on Television. It may have been a NOVA re-run? I really don’t remember, except I think he said “cavemen”, not “australopithecine.” He may have been dumbing down for the TV audience.
Did you see this? Very interesting.
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt125.html
Report comment to moderator
KWatson post 21,
I scanned your link and it is indeed wonderful to read.
Anyone who can generate such ire form certain Christian groups based on his statements of what are clearly scientific facts sounds like a solid scientist to me.
Realistically there are potential challenges to some of his theological positions and how he reconciles them with his scientific positions. But in the main it appears that Collins maintains a rigorous sceitntific perspective (thus generating the ire in some Christian circles).
And one can make all sorts of statements one desires, but completion of the Human Genome project is indeed a scientific tour de force and, as I noted, by completeing it as a public project, Collins helped minimze the private patenting of the human genome.
Report comment to moderator
The link I provided above says, in small part, “If there were other humans on Earth when Adam and Eve came into being, or if there never were a real Adam and Eve, then the historical reality of Original Sin is eliminated and with it the reason given in the Bible for the coming of Christ.” Exactly my point in #5.
This is the fundamental reason that Christianity is anti-science, Francis Collins and his pro science apologetics not withstanding.
Report comment to moderator
KWatson post 23,
the Stanford article (link seems a bit flaky) notes:
When questioned later about the existence of Adam and Eve, he even hesitatingly offered the view that perhaps they were more representative of something that happened across species, since our genetic gene pool suggests that we are actually descended from a group of 10,000 people in Africa.
and the general consensus is that Collins appears to believe that Adam and Eve are metaphorical. I will contiue to review “The Language of God” to confirm this point.
YOu are right, however, it appears that there are certain portions of Christinaity (from a denominational perspective at least, a minority of Christians) who insist that Adam and Eve must be historically correct and that the fall is a literal fall.
I always liked Peter Leavitts discusison on this point: in summary Peter appears to have argued that no one including conservatvie Christinas (which it appears he considered himself) could accept Genesis creation as other than metaphorical given the preponderance of the scientific evidence.
The link for the Standford article is:
Stanfoprd Review article </A.
Report comment to moderator
KWatson post 23,
I suggest that perhaps the plausibly reasonable formulation is that one can not believe in a strong version of Bilical inerrancy and be a true scientist.
A scientist must, as Collins himself describes, follow the data. Strict Biblical inerrancy tyupically presupposes the truth as given in the bible and then requires that the evidence be forced to fit it.
This produces a very strange perspective on science indeed.
It is not evangelical or conservative Christinaity which is the issue (hence Collins can in fact be an Evangelical Christian). It is the assumptional step of strict Biblical inerrancy.
Report comment to moderator
Obama should not have cleaned out the bio-ethics panel and replaced it with yes-men. . . .
A rubber-stamp ethics panel is just an insult to the very idea of ethical reasoning.
Wow!
YOu know there is hope when people can see Obama’s shortcomings instead of glossing over them. Kudos to you JJF. Best thing I have seen you write .
Report comment to moderator
#11 and #13 I think the ’selling point’ is that this is different than Obama’s usual partisan moves. Hence the identity of the religion was shown. It is sort of like…. “See Here ! ! ! This is different! ! ! ” Sort of like electing someone to president who isn’t smart, who is not eloquent without a teleprompter, someone who isn’t smart even with a teleprompter, someone who hates this country instead of loving it. Someone who is trying to be a shepherd but hates the sheep le.”
Report comment to moderator
montyfisherwoof post 27,
but of course this actually is not different.
Obama has throughout his campaign demonstrated that he is a man of fairh: just not the same interpretation of this faith as conservatvie Christians typically have.
Collins has been active and successful in the governmental scientific community for many years.
Why should he not be chosen to try to lead NIH to a resurgence?
I suggest that perhaps the real observation here is the misinterpretation by some conservative Christians regarding what is happening.
Report comment to moderator
I reskimmed “The Language of God” yesterday to refresh my memory of its material.
The first thing which struck me is how Collins presented many of the same arguments that I have made in this blog in the past:
a) big bang beginning of the universe
b) age of the earth based on radioactive decay arguents
c) evolution as the most plausible model based on the biochemistry evidence
etc.
Where Collins and I appeared to diverge was on the following concepts:
1) miracles and a God presently active in the Universe
2) the meaning and source of what Collins appears to term an internal MOERAL sense
3) some apparent misunderstandings of the behavior of hyperbolic systems: but then Collins is a biologist and my specialty is applied mechanics
My differences on item 1 stem from a different perspective on the math, and I suggest that Collins’ argument here is somewhat problematic.
The difference on item 2 is an interpretational one, and is indeed a valid philosophical difference (although one with interesting consequences, that I did not see Collins address in his book).
The difference in item 3 is more substantive and is impacted by ramifications of item 1.
I submit that Collins, however, is extremely rigorous in his scientific approach. If I were to create an arguably subjective scale on where Collins religous perspective exists within the scientific community I would put him on the further end in advocating a religious approach (but by no means the furthest end of this scale).
This is neither the major policy break which some posting here suggest nor does it actually represent what Alisa Harris appears to be suggesting is really happening.
I would recommend reading “The Language of God” first before one draws too many conclusions.
P.S. KWatson: in “The Language of God” it seems pretty clear that Collins views Genesis creation as allegory. HIs comments on Adam and Eve from the Stanford talk suggest the kind of difficulties one must manage if one is to operate from Collins perspective. One needs a very good intellect to keep the model clean and consistent.
Report comment to moderator
Collins observation that if God were to exist before the big bang, then by the nature of this statement, God must exist outside of our space and time is a very important and deep construct.
And from this construct, problematic issues arise with items 1 and 3 of the previous post. It would be delightful to have Collins explain how he reconciles the apparent contradictions which arise from his thoughts regarding these points AND God being outside of our space and time.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, Last night I came across a reference to Collins’ anthropic argument for God. I’ve always used anthropic arguments to demonstrate why god is not necessary (inflating multiverse with different phase transition details in each bubble and the like). Have you come across it in your reading?
Report comment to moderator
Kwatson
The anthropic principle has been used both ways but applying Ockham’s Razor is sufficient to eliminate the god hypothesis as rationally necessary. (in my opinion anyway)
Report comment to moderator
KWatson post 31/HRW post 32,
if you look at page 76 of “the Language of God” Collins posits three possibilities for explaing the fine balance of physical constants necessary to make life possible on earth:
1) infinite universes which are all slightly different and we live in the one in which the constants are appropriate. Note that the universes can not communicate with each other
2) it was pure chance
3) a supreme being ensured that the constants would be appropriate
See page 76 of “The Language of God” or got to:
Amazon Page on “The Language of God”
and do a search on the term “infinite universes”.
Collins observes that option 1 can not be observed and so whether true or not can be eliminated from consideration.
Now Collins assumes that the supernatural is possible, although the probability of supernatural events must be quite low. With that assumption he performs a Bayesian analysis showing that therefore the present universe is more probably the result or a supreme being.
Collins never quantifies what a quite low probability is.
A look at observation error includes the term Collins admits:
a) quantum probabilities
but aloso includes the followijng terms which it does not appear Collins admits:
b) thermodynamic noise components: if the measuring device is above absolute zero, heat introduces noise
c) errors in the meausring system itself due to manufacture/calibration/etc.
d) noise due at least in part due to unknown and/or uncontrolled phenomenon
And I suggest that a more correct forumlation of Collins observation is that the probability of a supernatural event must be below the observational error level. It will take a mathematical effort whcih will drive a doctoral student mad, but when done one will find that the probabilty of a supernatural cause for the present constants is indistinguishable from the probability in option 2 (depenjding on how you do the calculations they may not be the same, but a statistical test, probably a t test, will show that you can not be certain that they are not the same). In fact the options 2 and 3 are identical except that 3 postulates a God which can not be proved or detected.
In short, if we look at only objective concerns, HRW is correct, and occam’s razor shows that God is unnecessary.
As I read Collins’ book, however, I sense that his argument for God is not based on an objective need, but rather on a subjective need which appears to be associated his concept of MORAL.
And occam’s razor can not refute this subjectvie need. But note, by being a subjective need, this is a need which as stated is necessary for Collins. He provides no demonstration that it is necessary in general.
And buried here, I suggest is a classic misunderstanding by most believers and paradoxically a classic misunderstandiong of what are often termed unbelievers.
Report comment to moderator
HRW
Any use of Ockham’s razor which attempts to diminish God’s existence is contrary to the intended use of his construct, for Ockham was a believer. To apply it to atheistic presuppositions is to take the man’s philosophy out of context, in my opinion, anyway.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!