Genome scientist and Evangelical Christian Francis Collins got the nod from President Obama today to head up the National Institutes of Health. Atheists are already on the attack. Thus Jerry Coyne at the U. of Chicago pronounces himself “worried”: “I’d be much more comfortable with someone whose only agenda was science, and did not feel compelled to set up a highly-publicized website demonstrating how he reconciles his science with Jesus.”
Just so happens I have an op-ed in the Forward this week reflecting on precisely the fight over “accomodationism,” pitting Coyne et al. v. Collins et. al. The issue: can science and religion be reconciled, or does it perhaps make a difference what you mean by “science”? Readers of this blog will know that I’ve shown how Francis Collins makes a mash of the very serious religious belief that human beings are made in the image of God. More on Collins and his insipid theology here.
The author doesn’t see a need for divorce of science from religion. I maintain there is not marriage, and one should not be made. Science and religion are not the same, indeed they are fundamental opposites — one finds conclusions from facts, and the other finds facts to fit a conclusion (that there is an invisible man in the sky). To adhere to both is to apply different world view to the same world, depending on the subject matter.
There is no reason for science to tolerate religion, nor even consider it, save for the archaeological kernels of truth that may appear in religious texts. I’m getting tired of this debate.
You may be tired of this debate but it will never end. Hopefully as the number of religious people slowly slip we can have it less often but I doubt it. I am very disappointed with Obamas pick. Not sure what the hell he was thinking.
I totally disagree with Dave’s narrow minded point of view about science and religion. I could give examples of how he’s wrong with both sides…
But the more revealing point is that Dave believes a person should have to go through a religious test to hold a government position…so much for being a defender of the Constitution…
Phree says could give examples of how he’s wrong with both sides…
Ok then go for it. Not that it would make any sense or be correct.
Dave said nothing about a religious test or even about denying Collins the spot because of his religion- he just said science needs to shed some of the nonsense and Saint Francis isn’t helping.
I guess the political and commercial interests that have corrupted the health sciences aren’t bad enough. Let’s throw some religion in there too.
Obama lost a lot of points with this one. I’ve read a good amount of stuff from Collins- he generally tries to avoid the dumb logic many zealots use- so he wins points for that, but this essentially leaves him with nothing to say. He never gives any evidence for a God, just repeats that science doesn’t disprove him so he can believe whatever he wants.
I have no problem with him as a scientist, but I will if he uses his position to spread any sort of good news.
Lost a lot of points? Sheesh…and everyone on this board who voted for Barry will vote for him again. Even though his actions PROVE he only pays lip service to non-theists and gays…
What’s that lesson children learn? Oh yeah…
Fool me once shame on you….fool me twice shame on me…
and in Phreeky’s case: Fool me for a lifetime? Call me a christian.
How many times must I say that I voted for Obama as the lesser evil?. Unfortunately we have to choose between Republicans increasing faith based initiatives and God flavored military briefs and Obama appointing a guy I disagree with on a certain issue and simply allowing some religious crap in the system to stay.
Wrong. Christianity & science are fundamental complements of each other.
There, fixed that for ya.
Riiiight, since we only acknowledge ethics that we agree with, who needs an objective standard for that?
JaCCoff said:
“Christianity & science are fundamental complements of each other.”
Let me waste some time and ask you a few questions. 1) How many species of snakes has science identified that can not only speak, but debate the authority of god? 2) How many varieties of fruit known to science can kill the victim and every child born to them? 3) Where in the creation account of the Bible does it mention the millions of years of rule of the reptiles?
You can repeat the same idiotic statements, but the fact is that as the churches of Europe persecuted the scientists of the renaissance, they could not keep a cap on the truth. The genie is out of the bottle. That is that your hateful murdering god is as much a myth as Zeus, or Venus, Mohammed, or Buddah. He a crutch you carry around that numbs your fear of death. A pathetic dilution. A drug addiction.
Valid points actually exist to be argued about the origin of the universe, but, brain up JaCCoff, they don’t have anything to do with tent dweller mythology.
NeoWolfe
Wow Neo…did your neighborhood get lonely?
Let’s see…you’ve left twice now only to return to entertain ALL of us with your angry rants…
If you could keep your emotions under control, you might actually be able to contribute to a discussion…
Phreedumbfuck,
I was perfectly coherent, and if you disagree please point it out instead of making vague personal accusations. Look deep behind your brainwash, you can really do it.
NeoWolfe
And why don’t you engage me phreeanderthal?
Because you’re AFRAID.
Objective? What the fuck is “objective’ about some 1600 year old dogma created by a committee of political hacks and murderers designed to play off even older superstitions in an effort to control their actions?
Fucking moron.
Government is inherently political. Anything involving government will also become political. If you don’t want politics in your science, then keep it out of the government.
Since you stated that government is inherently political then I can only conclude that you either want to keep government out of science or science out of government. And that would be wise because … ?
Government corrupts everything it touches. Government is power and coercion. If you’d like your science to occur within that sphere, then you deserve the corrupt conclusions that come from it.
Sorry I took so long to reply. Vacation.
geoih,
Can we also keep government out of our finances? OH!!! Wait!!! Thats how the global economy collapsed. Good plan!!! Let’s keep common sense out of every vital issue, then religion can rule again.
NeoWolfe
Not sure what you’re eluding to. Perhaps you think government isn’t already fully entwined in all matters financial. What do you think has caused this great mess?
Again, sorry for the delay responding.
JCC is right for once. In a set theory sense ignorance IS the complement to knowledge.
No, Whutthole,
An egg is a complement to sperm. They join and create something. You and JaCCoff are a complement forming both sides of the god equation, one a victim of brainwash, the other a brainless asshole. Together you form the embarrassment of humanity.
NeoWolfe
Neo, was that neccessary? You bitch about how we look to the outside world, then you post this petty cheap shot. C’mon.
Pot? Kettle? Hello!
There were so many better picks for the position.
Maybe not. Collins is said to be competent in the particular scientific fields related to the NIH. And a person’s religiosity should never be a “litmus test”. Obama seems to me to have a pretty good feel for balancing practicality and political expediency.
Here is a more objective view, and one commenter notes:
NSF
Scientists lose their god delusion at an impressive rate as they mature. Wouldn’t it be grand if Collins lost his while serving as NIH director!
I get no pleasure from sticking my nose into other people’s business. I think it will be grander if collins proves to be a good director of the NIH.
Well don’t then. But wouldn’t it be grand?
He’s got to get the pick past the fucktards in congress. The climate is not right yet, so this doesn’t bother me too much.
Minus 10 more points from Obama, on my scorecard. He did some good things, and a few bad things, and now this.
It’s only a matter of time before an adultery scandal or gay meth abuse scandal comes out of the Obama Administration. If he’s going to appoint losers, the way the Republicans do, it’s bound to happen.
We should make a betting pool based on how Obama’s going to fall from grace. He lost 10 points with me when we discovered that he’s still a ciggarette smoker. Now he gives the nod to the next head of the National Institutes of Health. lol!
As far as science and religion working together, this reminds me of my first science class.
In 7th grade physical science class, at Holy Ghost Catholic School in Houston, we learned about the reality of evolution. But before the lessons concerning that began, each class began with a prayer. Just prior to that class, we had religion class, where we learned that God created us not long ago.
Sure religion and science can exist together in many settings – but only as long as people don’t mind diluting both, and mixing reality and fantasy. Essentially that’s ONLY when the objectives of the day are NOT vitally important. Example: During your brain surgery, you don’t want an anti-science topic diluting the back and forth that’s inevitably going to happen over your open skull.
Science isn’t religion and doesn’t try to be. For good reason too. Religion has such a sorry track record all around, no one should ever aspire to become part of it. But humans will be humans, and will make mistakes. Big ones.
Why do you esteem science so high? Is it because it makes sense sometimes or is it just because you refuse to believe in God. Science alone will never be able to explain our world. We have been trying for centuries to explain our origins but have come to lazy and ignorant conclusions like evolution. Human science can only go so far because we are not all-knowing and we humans don’t have all the answer but it is up to us to believe in in the One that knows it all.
God is a conclusion- the laziest one available. Science, as I understand it, does not make conclusions.
“lazy and ignorant conclusions like evolution”
Oh now that’s a riot. What do you think scientists do all day, dream up stuff and then spew it out as fact? (without challenge, to boot?).
Evolution is one of the most fleshed out theories in all of science. In order to achieve that status, countless hours of tedious research were performed, and then the “conclusions” of such research were put through the wringer of per-review after which many scientists found themselves back at the drawing board trying to substantiate their findings (or drop them if what they claimed couldn’t stand up to scrutiny).
You could fill a library with the information we have learned about evolution over the past century and half. There is no place for sloth or ignorance in this field of study. Your god-of-the-gaps, on the other hand, is the ultimate shortcut and gives us nothing that adds to our knowledge about how life, and the world, actually works.
“Science alone will never be able to explain our world.” — perhaps, but it at least explains something. “God did it” explains nothing, not a single damn thing.
Another mindless puppet. Look at him dance.
Shhh, I think it’s the Lambada.
Science tends to work. Religion fails miserably. No need to esteem science highly in the light of that score. We just need to be honest about comparisons.
I’m not worshipping science…
vladimir: “Science alone will never be able to explain out world.”
Darwin: “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”
vladimir
What you are doing here, is demonstrating your own ignorance.
Go to school. (I mean a real, honest school, not Liberty or Bob Jones U.) Enroll in science classes. Hit the books. Listen to the lectures. Do the lab work. Ask the teachers questions about things you don’t understand.
Then, in 5 or 10 years, maybe you’ll know enough about science to express an intelligent opinion on it.
To know the truth you don’t need a degree from Harvard or Berkley but a passion and a desired to want to know the truth.
And for your info, I went to one of the best Universities in Peru for 5 years where they taught me everything I know about evolution, and materialism, etc.
So, please re-elaborate your statement because you were wrong.
vladimir
From your posts, it’s clear that you know nothing about evolution. Whatever they were doing to you in Peru, they obviously weren’t educating you. Did you pay them tuition? You should demand your money back.
Vlad went to St. Pedophilo University.
Science and religion are not compatible. Science has been chipping away at the ignorance of religion for decades, perhaps centuries. Unknowns into which some bible thumping psychotic has inserted god have decreased in number due to the diligence of scientists who have filled the unknowns with knowledge instead. With the exception of fundies,and a few others, many christians are down to only one gap: An entity that might have started the ball rolling in the very beginning, and a Jesus who was a teacher but not a god. Science may answer the question of the beginning of the universe some day.
Science has been chipping away ignorance in religion but science could never chip away God. And please understand that when I say religion I don’t mean God and when I say God I don’t mean religion. Atheists love to use religion to give God a bad name but we need to learn to be objective. Atheism has been suffering from a lack of objectivty just like the media.
You said that Jesus is not a God…prove it! Show me the proof that there is no God? Use your science to demonstrate your point.
Science without God is worthless.
You can’t even prove that you believe in God.
That’s checkmate.
Game.Set.Match.
End of mission, target neutralized.
Dear vladimir: Prove Santa Claus, the easter bunny, the tooth fairy, the flying spaghetti monster, elves, leprechauns, unicorns, the tea kettle in orbit between jupiter and mars, and the movie theater on jupiter, and etc, do not exist. You can’t. Of course they don’t exist, just as no gods exist, but you cannot prove it. If you say god exists, you must prove it. It is your responsibility to do so, as yours is a positive claim. Religion, like god or gods, are inventions of humans.
Science destroys gods. This is why religious people hate science, especially science which dispels the myths of their religions or the existence of their gods.
Well said, DW.
Vlad,
Asking us to prove a negative when you’re the one making the outrageous claim — hopefully, you’re not a shining example representative of the higher education system in Peru.
Another one of these fucktards?!?!?!? Why do we have to put up with these idiots? Can we please have another vote on the removal of the dumb ass theists on here? They don’t belong! They go anywhere else, they control everything else, why the fuck are they here?
Look, you dumb fucking slav, polack, whatever the fuck you are (and i don’t really care, I’m just out to insult you), NO ONE IS GOING TO AGREE WITH YOU. YOU CAN’T REJECT NOTHING. YOU CAN’T PISS OFF WHAT DOES NOT EXIST. SCIENCE IS A PROCESS THAT CONSTANTLY CHANGES AS THE KNOWLEDGE OF A SUBJECT GROWS. RELIGION IS INCAPABLE OF ANY SUCH ACTION OR PROCESS.
GET IT? NOW GO AWAY.
Let’s be OBJECTIVE .. and believe in a fantastical being for which their is no evidence?????
I believe that science can be reconciled with religion, the only true religion that is, Christianity.
First you establish a hypothesis, then you ask the lord Jesus Christ to bless this hypothesis with the blood of his ever flowing wounds. If the hypothesis is consistent with the will of Jehovah god almighty you might expect a talking snake to appear and attempt to lead you astray, if this does not happen you only have to worry that the enemy of man and true science, Lucifer the dark one, will take you to a high place and offer you the world if only you falsify your findings.
At last you may present to the world your scientific discovery, and fear not that anyone will contaminate your work as the lord will send an angel to guard the doorway of your lab with his flaming sword.
Very funny but weak. You make fun of something you cannot comprehend, how pathetic. What is science but a mere attempt of man trying to understand his environment. The environment that had already been created by God.
Don’t get me wrong, I apprecite science because it makes life easier for all of us if used properly. But science in the hands of a bunch of fools has been destroying humanity for centuries.
I dislike this insinuation that the science that allows your life to be easier is somehow different than the science that produces information which is contrary to your religious beliefs as is therefore what – not ‘used properly’? That doesn’t make any kind of sense.
This is classic. When attacked the believer merely states you do not comprehend. Ignorance has always used this claim to silence critics. You are said to be incapable of understanding the incomprehensible, an immature statement much like saying my god is better than your god, or you can’t understand because you are not under the godspell.
Science is a tool. It can be misused. It behooves humanity to use knowledge wisely. History outlines the price of ignorance as imbued by religious belief. Christianity would celebrate a return to the Dark Ages, as it ruled at that time.
Vlad,
What exactly constitutes science being “used properly”?
I agree. Take you for example… You deny one of the most fundamental and profound scientific theories ever formulated by man (evolution) while still utilizing the benefits produced by the theory — like your use of genetic algorithms in doing searches on the web. Nothing says fool like a science-denying hypocrite. It’s fools, such as yourself, that are greatly responsible for much of the “destruction” of humanity.
Fuckstick, we’re mocking you.
I say we fuze his thumbs so they’re stationary. He’s lost the right to use them.
Vladibubby- I’m afraid you’re right, but science at the hands of fools has proven to be better than foolishness at the hands of fools.
Three things- 1- most atheists comprehend the idea of religion better than the religious 2- Look up the negative proof fallacy 3- Explain “The environment that had already been created by God.” What leads you to believe that God created the world around you and not the all powerful Spaghetti Monster or Zeus?
Vlad
Peru= grinding poverty where was your god the catholic church for years supported the rich elite.If a god created mans environment then it should be destroyed for the misery it has created in latin america.When my sister worked at an orphanage outside of mexico city yrs ago there was a million abandoned children in mexico.what kind of god lets children suffer.
What kind of “intelligent designer” designs species that kills its own and slaughters and consumes other species designed by the intelligent designer?
Answer; a MONSTER!
Not-so-Off-Topic:
With one screen down, how can Uh-bama look “natural” when stammering through his next speech while reading from the one remaining TOTUS screen? The real question is, was this assassination attempt of TOTUS the result of a plan Cheney hatched prior to leaving office and executed by one of his “sleeper cells?” …We can only pray…
http://tinyurl.com/m84bdn
http://www.farleftside.com/2009/3-30-09.html
Cute, but that just goes to show how far out of their way the libs have to go to cover for this farce of president.
But what’s more, did you see on Tuesday, that TOTUS fed the Bamster a line of BS that he met his wife in “a class,” and the buffoon read it without skipping a beat? That should cinch it for anyone still doubting… we got a demonstrable imbecile in the White House.
Here, I’ll even give a link to a liberal site that confirms it:
http://tinyurl.com/kpqszc
Heh. Yeah, it would’ve been better had he said immediately after, “Hey, wait, that’s not right- Michelle and I didn’t met in a class; we met…”
But maybe like some men, he doesn’t remember where they met or how many years they’ve been married, or when her mother’s birthday is. Or maybe he decided to just let it go. It’s hardly an important issue to anyone but him and his wife. Maybe he’ll have to sleep on the couch for a few days.
“We can only pray.”
Exactly. And you stay that course while the rest of us actually do things.
Yeah, in a perfect world…
Yeah, right… like the article said, even the Bamster, after you manage to see through his self-generated, messiahship facade, is just another schlub, male chauvinist, pig.
Or, maybe he really is a brain-dead, sockpuppet of Axelrod.
…and the slavishly sycophantic, lap-dog, drive-by, state-run, mainstream media—unless of course it had been perpetrated by Bush 43; then it’d be all they’d slobber about for three 24-hour news cycles.
Yep, that’s me; never actually done a thing…
Is that one of the things you’re praying for?
Well, we knew before the election that he left his dirty socks lying around. And we voted for him anyway.
He’s an example of what you consider brain death? That explains a lot.
But the question still needs to be asked: “Is our children learning?”
Hmmm…did W come up with that on his own, or did he have teleprompter help?
For that, we are grateful.
No, you’ve obviously confused me with your favorite Liberation Theology nut, spanders.
Note correction above.
Hey, he clearly meets the media’s criteria they applied to W. (remind me again what an “inhalator” is?)
You tell me. How many times did we see W winging it in public vs. Uh-bama never being seen without it.
Huh?
I could never confuse you with spanders. But, my mistake; should’ve taken into account that you don’t care if this life is perfect, since the next one is sure to be.
Note correction above
Yep, anal-retentive to the bitter end.
Substitute “uh” for “inhalator” and you gotta deal.
Huh? He can’t read above 1st grade, but can speak off-the-cuff—on the world stage, no less—and that’s somehow inferior to Uh-bama’s demonstrable inability to speak unscripted?
Was I too nuanced? Are you seriously saying that all I do is pray and never do anything?
I’m curious. You’ve said on a couple occasions here that I said something to you years ago that helped you through a tough time in your life. And I’ve made it known to you that I pray about most everything I write to you and that, on many occasions, I’ve been led to significantly alter what I’ve written, or not respond at all as a result of those prayers. Given that I have no reason to lie to you about those facts, how do you feel about the fact that whatever it was I said (that helped you out) was a direct result of prayer?
Nah. As annoying as that “uh” can be, it can’t top nucular in my book. Seems to me that Sahara Palin “uh-ed” a lot, but you didn’t complain when she did it.
So you admit Bush can’t read above first grade level?
No. I was just yanking your chain.
What you said that made the difference was something about not whining about being repeatedly raped as a child. Are you sure you prayed before making that remark? Because it seemed more like an off-the-cuff snark. And what it did was piss me off, but then I started thinking about it, and realized (after some time) that shit just happens, and I couldn’t change the past, so I might as well get on with life as best I could in light of what the experience did to me. Your words were not a direct cause/effect happening, but more of a catalyst to a chain of events. Whether or not they were inspired by prayer on your part is irrelevant, as I see prayer as simply talking to oneself. How do you feel about that?
An occasional “uh” between paragraphs is a far cry from stammering over virtually every other word with it.
I’m guilty of saying a lot of things I’ve later regretted here, but one thing I’m not guilty of is saying, “something about not whining about being repeatedly raped.” So, I’d have to say that that makes me think your memory is faulty. If I had to guess, I probably admonished you for trying to blame Christians for all your current woes, which is a completely different animal than what you falsely accused me of.
Don’t mind JCC. He’s just angry because the GOP is dead and he helped destroy it – by simply being himself.
There’s no doubt my memory is faulty. I’ve been slogging through old threads, trying to find the conversation I had in mind,to no avail. Man, we had a lot of long threads back in the day! I’ll keep looking, but it will have to be later.
JCC,
Your posts just grow more and more petty. There are a dozen or more relevant reasons to not support President Obama and you pick his use of teleprompters and his misspeaking about how he met his wife?
Who’s the imbecile again? Sheesh, it’s no wonder the RR have been dismissed by the general voting population.
It’s lost so many arguments about atheism all it can do is repeat petty accusations it heard on the internets. It is incapable of original thought. It is not worth engaging, and it should be deleted from this blog.
JCC:
If you’re insinuating that you hope President Obama gets assasinated I will report you to the Dept. of Homeland Security.
Given that JCC wont or can’t answer fundamental questions about his assertions what is left besides pettiness? All he deserves is ridicule.
It. All it deserves is ridicule.
My bad.
My girlfriend actually called me and woke me up when she heard about this! I think that the whole situation of how religion relates to science is very cut and dry. I absolutely think that science and religion are diametrically opposed to one another, using two completely different types of methods to learn about the world and our relations to it. Science is naturalistic (as is atheism) and therefore, it rules out the supernatural by default. Science must start with an assumption that natural laws are uniform througout time and space. If this were not true, any objective data would be unattainable. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too! When religionists and theists want to accept their supernaturalist explanations alongside the naturalist one, they are either fooling themselves, or have some sort of dual life (one in which they accept science and the other in which they accept religion). For me, such a life would create too much cognitive dissonance to be bearable, for we all know the contradictions are almost endless. Anyone who argues otherwise, that science and religion are indeed compatible, have ultimately failed to convince me. Could I be wrong? Of course! Must we tolerate and accept one another for who we are? Of course! There may be a “right” or “wrong” answer to this question, but since when are debates ever so cut and dry?? lol