…and this is a 
I've been wrestling with how to respond to the imminent appointment of Francis Collins to the NIH, and it's tough. The problem is that he has excellent qualifications for the position of chief paper-pusher and technician-wrangler, but that his position on religion is just plain weird. He's a lovable dufus with great organizational skills whose grasp of the principles of science is superficial. But you can't just reject the guy because he's religious — we're in big trouble when we start using a religious litmus test for high political positions.
Oh, wait…we already do that. You know if someone with equivalent prestige and administrative credentials was even half as vocal about atheism as Collins is about Christianity, there's no way she would even be considered for this appointment.
Anyway, I was on The World Tonight Redux with Rob Breakenridge, a radio program out of Canada to talk about these issues the other night, and I listed a few reasons why Collins was a poor choice.
He's a big-science guy, who headed the National Human Genome Research Institute. I have some concern that he has a mindset that may not promote the diversity of scientific research — he represents a very narrow, gene-jockey style of research, which is valuable and does churn out lots of data, but I've often found exhibits a worrisome lack of understanding of the big picture of biology. I'd have liked to have seen a leader with more breadth: someone with an appreciation of systems biology, or environmental biology, and a little less shackled to the purely biomedical side.
He doesn't understand evolution. He has said that he thinks humans are no longer evolving, that junk DNA is functional, and he can't understand how altruism could have evolved. RPM summarized these deficiencies well. I know he argues well against the specifics of intelligent design, but ultimately, he's following the same gods-of-the-gaps formula that the Discovery Institute does, as this article on Slate explains:
This formula offers a convenient litmus test for where Collins falls on a variety of questions: If a given problem appears to be merely unsolved, then he'll leave it to the realm of science; if, on the other hand, Collins deems a question to be unsolvable, it's fair game for inclusion in a spiritual interpretation of the universe.
That's not what I want to hear from someone with such a visible position in science.
His website, Biologos, is an embarrassment of poor reasoning and silly christian apologetics. It's awful. His logic is a joke, and all it really shows is that Collins is a man blinded by faith to the absurdities of his convictions. That he even asks "At what point in the evolutionary process did humans attain the 'Image of God'?", or "Was there death before the Fall?", among many other similar absurdities, is a revelation. These are questions that don't even have any meaning outside the scope of a specific, very narrow religious view.
It's also another difficult issue for me. I'm the last guy who's going to say someone should be denied a position because he maintains a controversial website. However, it's not the controversy that annoys me (it's also not particularly controversial among the American mainstream — it's more like a site that panders to a religious bias), it's the stupidity.
This is a big one for me: he will use his position to act as a propagandist for Christianity, entirely inappropriately. We already saw this in the announcement of the completion of the draft of the human genome project, where he actually brags about getting Clinton to include religious language in his speech, and where he himself made claims about the DNA sequence being "the language of god". The head of the NIH isn't just an administrative position; it's a political position, and the appointment of a loudly evangelical Christian to that spot is sending a political message. There are enough of us even louder atheists out here who will make a stink over any attempt on his part to use the accomplishments of science under the NIH to proselytize, that he's going to have to be very cautious in his statements from now on.
Finally, my objections rest on an important word: integrity. Collins hasn't got it.
I don't mean integrity in the sense of being honest and having strong moral principles; I think Collins is entirely sincere, and he doesn't seem to be the type to have ever crossed any lines of ethical behavior, except perhaps in his taste in music.
I mean integrity as in the condition of being unified, unimpaired, or sound in construction. He's a jumble of intellectual contradictions, and when you read any of his interviews, he comes off as an amiable lightweight. I'd rather have someone who can think like a scientist in charge than yet another Jebusite with an evangelical agenda.
Jerry Coyne, Steve Pinker, and Eric Michael Johnson all have interesting things to say on this subject. I have no hope that any of this will make a difference, however; Collins will obligingly appeal to the superstitions of congress and sail through any confirmation. I had higher hopes for Obama, but at this point, I can only despair of the kind of president who would consult the Pope on bioethics. I'm beginning to feel he will not hesitate to sacrifice reason on the altar of religious conformity.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Darren Garrison | July 11, 2009 1:18 PM
"Was there death before the Fall?"
I once knew a guy who was a young-earther and in college to be a science teacher who asked me if I thought that weeds existed before The Fall. I thought it incredibly sad that someone that ignorant would be teaching SCIENCE to children. Fortunately, he chose to teach math instead of a biological science. In the end, instead of corrupting their minds, he merely molested them: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296434,00.html
Posted by: James F | July 11, 2009 1:19 PM
That's an understatement. He dealt with one of the worst things that a PI can face: a student in his lab who fabricated published data. He privately contacted leukemia researchers who might be impacted by the questionable findings, then confronted his former student in person and got his confession of the fraud. Papers were retracted. A big reason you don't hear much about Amitav Hajra these days is how effectively Collins handled the situation.
Posted by: CW | July 11, 2009 1:22 PM
Totally OT, but if we can crush a poll we can certainly Pharyngulate a couple hundred votes to send GrrlScientist to Antarctica. Right?
Posted by: applescrapple | July 11, 2009 1:24 PM
Very discouraging. But, at least you are doing everything possible, PZ, to protect the rational elements of our society from being overwhelmed by the ignorant - and vicious -majority.
Posted by: Zeno | July 11, 2009 1:26 PM
President Obama may not exactly wear his religion on his sleeve, but he is as conventionally religious as most Americans, who tend to be lip-service Christians who vaguely believe in the God of the Bible (which, mercifully, they don't read that much). George W. Bush was similarly lax about actual religious practice but much more deeply steeped in the right-wing cant of the conservative Christian evangelicals and their hardcore young-earth creationism. The fact that we've left that behind is a big, big step in the right direction, but I never deceived myself that Obama would be a clean break with his religion-sodden predecessor.
It's sort of a shame to be so grateful for small favors, but America is far from ready to elect a nonbelieving humanist. Europe is way ahead of us in that regard.
We should keep in mind that the Christianists are right about one thing: Obama's mainstream religiosity is not the sort of faith that will cause his administration to rewrite EPA reports, NIH bulletins, or NSF policies so that they conform with "God's worldview". We have an administration now that has much more respect for science, even if major figures from the president on down (all the way to Collins) insist on tarting it up with God-talk pieties. It's a veneer of mainstream Christianity that irks nonbelievers without providing comfort to the mouth-breathing Christers.
Posted by: Platypus | July 11, 2009 1:26 PM
On a semi-off topic going back to that Dennett thread, you might be amused to hear that I just put the word "kenotic" in a manuscript I'm writing up.
Of course, I used it to describe nurse cells dumping their cytoplasmic contents into a developing oocyte, so it's actually completely appropriate.
Now I just hope the term will survive the reviewers...
Posted by: Helioprogenus | July 11, 2009 1:34 PM
Craig Venter is far more qualified than Collins, and indeed has many of the attributes one would wish someone in such an influential position would have.
Yet, Venter is a real scientist, and does not want to be constrained by politics, sitting behind a desk, pushing for another meeting to facilitate his political agenda. Venter has the kind of integrity that Collins lacks. Collins ability to sell bullshit to the masses has no equal, and thus, his appointment is the obvious choice.
Posted by: eddie | July 11, 2009 1:39 PM
Rational arguments against Collins's appointment don't seem to have worked. Maybe it's time for the Cockroach Mounted Deathray.
Posted by: Lynna | July 11, 2009 1:41 PM
PZ, correct "who's" to read "whose."
My brother and I were talking about the Collins appointment last night. At least he has excellent qualifications on the science side -- but...
We both wanted to give the man the benefit of the doubt. After reviewing some of Francis Collin's recent pronouncements and his book, I have to say that I'm disappointed. Credit where credit is due for the science, but Holy Buckets!, the man is bonkers and fuzzy-headed when it comes to the triune waterfall and conversion.
However, I do think Obama is between a rock and a hard Right-wing when it comes to science and health care. Obama needs a lot of support for the big issues. If Collins is a bone thrown to the Christians, maybe some real work will be done while they gnaw on it.
I still think Collins should be checked for the possible onset of Alzheimer's Disease. If you think he comes across as a lightweight now, it may get worse as he gets older. I like him, he's a nice guy, calming even, (if the videos I've seen are representative of his usual demeanor). The waterfall story does not hold water no matter how many times he tells it. Collins goes out of focus during the religious bits.
Posted by: oscar zoalaster | July 11, 2009 1:42 PM
Collins seems to be someone who believes that the subjective reality of his experiences is 'more true' than the objective reality that he, and all of us, live in.
Mooney and other 'accommodationists' seem to believe/experience that 'experiential reality' ('subjective reality', 'symbolic reality') is equal in importance to objective reality and that in order to be successful you have to simultaneously watch where you are going in both the objective world and multiple symbolic/experiential realities.
And my impression is that people who actually understand how science works, and particularly those who are also atheists, see the various subjective realities as interesting or valuable in direct proportion to how effective they are at helping us understand the objectively real world (or, with minor valuation, for entertainment value).
Unfortunately it seems to take preeminently valuing understanding the real world over our preconceptions, mistaken observations, and sincerely held assumptions, in order to notice that 'what we assume is true' is not the same thing as 'what is true'. It is weird that scientists and atheists get labeled as 'arrogant' when humbleness is an essential requirement for being an intellectually and emotionally satisfied scientist or atheist.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 11, 2009 1:53 PM
Well, junk DNA is functional, but only in the sense that humans are still evolving. All of those dandy base pairs are just lying around as raw material for potentially-useful mutations. They seriously reduce the Hamming distance from "what we have" to "something better."
Functional for individuals? No.
Functional in an evolutionary sense? Yes.
Posted by: Tom | July 11, 2009 1:58 PM
Just to pose a counterpoint, is it so bad to appoint someone who is of like-mind as those to whom he will be speaking? What I mean by this is, while we obviously don't approve of Collins' theological approach to science, the majority of his constituents -- not us, but government representatives -- are of his same belief system. If he says that American science needs a billion dollars for environmental sciences, is it all that bad that he blames it on (complete speculation:) "trying to have a better understanding of the world God creates for us"?
Put a controversial atheist in there and he, like many of the representatives who have "come out," might be pushed away regardless of his reputation as a scientist.
Just posing a counterpoint. I welcome responses.
Posted by: Lynna | July 11, 2009 2:02 PM
This is an excerpt from a debate between Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins, recorded in November, 2006. The full text has been re-posted on Dawkins' website:
DAWKINS: I think that's the mother and father of all cop-outs. It's an honest scientific quest to discover where this apparent improbability comes from. Now Dr. Collins says, "Well, God did it. And God needs no explanation because God is outside all this." Well, what an incredible evasion of the responsibility to explain. Scientists don't do that. Scientists say, "We're working on it. We're struggling to understand."
Posted by: eddie | July 11, 2009 2:08 PM
The on-topic point I was trying to link to was examples of the kind of arguments used to continue with the HGP after the science made it clear that one gene - one function was overly simplistic.
Even at the cutting edge of science, Collins let dogma take control.
http://www.thadguy.com/comic/emergency-argument-tactic-3/471/
Posted by: John | July 11, 2009 2:14 PM
"He's a lovable dufus with great organizational skills who's grasp of the principles of science is superficial."
The superficiality of your fundamental writing skills aside, you're not bitter, are you?
I mean, Collins is a really lousy singer and all, but he's not that bad.
Posted by: CS | July 11, 2009 2:17 PM
PZ, Obama didn't consult the Pope on bioethics. It was the Pope who unsurprisingly pushed his bioethics document on him, as well as lobbying against abortion, and probably other stuff.
This is standard for the Pope when meeting a head of state who doesn't adhere to the Catholic beliefs.
Posted by: HenryS
|
July 11, 2009 2:21 PM
I had higher hopes for Obama,
*********
Collins is small peanuts. Obama's refusal to reverse the Bush ban of Federal funding for needle exchange programs is immoral and utterly despicable. The usual Obama excuse was used: "Better done by Congress and need to build public support". That excuse is Obama's executive branch equivalent of his "Present" votes on controversial issues in the IL. Senate.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
July 11, 2009 2:21 PM
Collins should have no problem being confirmed by the Senate. We can complain about him all we want but (a) he's a name biomed scientist, (2) he's got administrative experience, and (iii) he's a Christian who wears his religion on his sleeve. This will probably be hailed as one of Obama's better appointments.
Posted by: eddie | July 11, 2009 2:23 PM
I do hope there's an upside in the way Tom proposes but there's the risk of wasting resources on irrelevant projects.
What, I wonder, is Collins's take on NCCAM?
Posted by: truthspeaker | July 11, 2009 2:44 PM
Politicians tend to prefer amiable lightweights to brilliant experts these days.
Posted by: Kevin B | July 11, 2009 3:08 PM
So:
Mouth-breathers - Not comforted
Mainstream (nose-breathers?)- satisfied with a "veneer of mainstream Christianity" on top of "much more respect for science".
Non-believers - irked.
Sounds like a net win for Obama.
Posted by: kermit | July 11, 2009 3:23 PM
I *like to think that Obama is making compromises necessary to get things done. I know that many idealists would accomplish no good at all because they would be too politically ineffective. But I am all to aware of the power of wishful thinking. What I *fear to think is that he is too conceptually invested (if not in other ways) in the established power structures, and cannot think outside the box.
At least he's nicer and smarter than Bush. But that alone isn't enough to change the system or discourage future Dubyas. As Claudius Caesar being so much better than Caligula, but he was replaced by Nero. No long term improvement, just a short breather for the general population.
Posted by: Athena Andreadis | July 11, 2009 3:28 PM
I already registered my misgivings about the potential appointment over at Jerry Coyne's site. However, there are a few important distinctions I'd like to make on comments here:
"Junk" DNA is anything but -- it's important to both the individual and to evolution. Beyond serving as a warehouse for past genes and a breeding ground for future ones, it also contains regulatory signals for replication, transcription and splicing, plus the numerous microRNAs that are also involved in regulation. There is nothing mystical about it, it’s the usual jury-rigging that’s commonplace in every aspect of all living organisms.
The fact that Collins discovered data fabrication by one of his students is indeed every principal investigator's worst nightmare. For most investigators, this signals the death of their careers because a PI is responsible for her/his lab, like a ship's captain. To have a PI publish five papers before becoming aware of fraud is indicative of automatic piloting at best.
The one gene-one function dogma was known to be wrong way before the Human Genome Project was underway -- since alternative splicing was discovered in the early eighties.
Finally, Venter would be a terrible choice to head the NIH. When he was part of the NIH, he involved the agency in the controversy over patenting of ESTs (expressed sequence tags). He wanted to patent the tags, the genes that coded them and the proteins from those genes. It's like having someone say: I just put together a better oil drill, so all drills, all oil wells and all the world's oil "are belong to me".
The NIH decided not to pursue this when the rest of the scientific world threatened (and rightly so) to close their databases to US scientists. If they had gone forward, none of the Genome data would be freely accessible. Venter may be a god to libertarians, but he's totally unsuitable for this particular position.
Posted by: Susan | July 11, 2009 3:37 PM
Yeah. His initial spate of appointments, especially Dr. Chu, raised my expectations, too. Thanks for making the appropriate noise in such a reasoned way, though; it's the only way to ensure the quality improves going forward.
Posted by: raven | July 11, 2009 3:45 PM
This is just wrong science.
1. The data, derived from Collin's own human genome project, is that human evolution has speeded up and we are evolving in fast forward mode. Our ecological niche, Hi Tech civilization never existed before and humans have a huge population size these days.
2. Boring, some junk DNA is functional, much of it is just there. In mice, you can delete megabases of it with no visible effects.
3. Altruism? WTF!!! Has Collins talked to an ant, bee, or termite lately? How about naked mole rats or a herd of buffalo? This is just the ancient fallacy, Argument from ignorance and personal incredulity. "I can't see how my foot evolved, therefore goddidit." If altruism is the gift of a deity who creates favorites in its image, then god is an exoskeletal hexapod with antennae sprouting from its forehead. And all humans are going to hell for inventing insecticides.
I still don't have much problem with Collins at NIH. He's been around for a while and there is no evidence it effects his day job.
Besides which, he terrifies the fundie creos. Someone as religious as they are, 10 times smarter, and thinks creationism is silly.
Posted by: raven | July 11, 2009 3:58 PM
That is cosmically stupid. My old county has one. It is very quiet but apparently the people who need to know, know.
During a budget crisis, they cut the funding. The HIV infection rate immediately started climbing like a rocket. All IV drug users. They refunded it.
The next time there was a budget crisis, they cut a lot of things. Not the needle exchange. Who do you think pays 20=50 thousand USD/year for HAART for decades for these guys?
It terms of cost effectiveness, you won't find many programs with more bang for the buck.
Posted by: debaser71 | July 11, 2009 4:09 PM
Anyone actually suprised by Obama must have not been paying attention during the primaries and election.
"I told ya so..."
Posted by: eddie | July 11, 2009 4:12 PM
Thanks for that clarification, Athena. I am seemingly misconstruing some of the criticism and proposed benefits of the hgp. I have been reading FC's wiki page and it mentions his group searching for the gene group for cystic fibrosis, albeit after he stopped being director. I got the impression that he continued to pursue the model when others had moved on.
Of course I don't have the expertise or access to look at their published papers so I appreciate the insight of such as yourself.
Posted by: raven | July 11, 2009 4:24 PM
Klinghoffer is a stupid liar.
1. Convergent evolution is ubiquitous and a fact. There are countless examples.
2. Cthulhu, what? This is the fallacy of Argument from Consequences. If nuclear fission were true, then humans would be making atomic bombs. Ooops they are.
3. There are tons of repulsive creatures out there. The urethra runner fish, Candera or whatever it is called that crawls up the downspout and plugs it up. Malaria, TB, leprosy, death plague and all the scourges that used to kill us by the millions.
Finally, the most repulsive is in the eye of the beholders. I would find humanoid toads like Bush, Falwell, Ham, and Klinghoffer right up there in the repulsiveness scale. They are conscious, malevolent, and evil humanoids. All the other creatures are just making a living any way they can. Malaria isn't trying to make people sick, it is trying to make more little malaria protozoans.
PS Anyone know what Klinghoffer does for a day job? He can't be making much of a living lying so ineptly for xian death cultists.
Posted by: Zeno | July 11, 2009 4:42 PM
Oops @ 29! Wrong thread, Raven.
Posted by: el cid | July 11, 2009 4:55 PM
PZ says "These are questions that don't even have any meaning outside the scope of a specific, very narrow religious view." And so he is not allowed to ask these questions? I get that you don't believe as he does, how does that make it wrong for him to ask the question, which is in fact necessary within his beliefs?
He has his religious beliefs and he is public about them. He makes a point of noting where the ID crowd is misleading others. Your doing a poor job of not attacking him just for his beliefs. He publicly dismisses godofthegaps thinking. Interesting that you accuse him of godofthegaps thinking by citing someone who accuses him of godofthegaps thinking rather than by his own words.
I have concerns over his scientific breadth and big science positions but he won't be a disaster and his personal beliefs are not an issue that matters.
Posted by: Ryan | July 11, 2009 5:01 PM
"A certain amount of hubris was required for anyone to call any part of the genome 'junk'." -- Francis Collins, The Language of God
RPM took that to mean that "there is no junk in the human genome". That's a complete misunderstanding. I'm an MS student in molecular biology and in fact, the term "junk DNA" really has fallen out of favor. One of the ways we discover new genes is by comparing genomes of different species and identifying sequences that have been conserved. The thinking is: if the sequence hasn't changed, it must be doing something, even if that something isn't coding for a protein. The amount of conserved sequence between, say, humans and chimps is roughly double the amount of identified coding sequence. Hence, much of what was once thought to be junk is actually functional sequence. This is what Collins was talking about. Nowhere in the quote does he say that he thinks all DNA is functional. That would truly be absurd.
Posted by: Kevin B | July 11, 2009 5:04 PM
I'm not particularly surprised. He is a gifted politician, but no elected official gets to keep every campaign promise, or lives up to every expectation.
As an example of expectations, some people voted for him thinking he is a closet atheist. Some people voted against him for the same reason. Both groups are finding that he continues to behave like a mainstream Christian.
I'm disappointed in his approach to several issues, like torture and detention, and I wish he would move faster on others, such as DADT.
But considering the mavericky train reck that a McCain-Palin administration would have been, I'd vote for Obama again if I had it to do over.
Whether I'll vote for him in three years...depends on what he does between now and then, and what else is out there.
Posted by: Biomusician
|
July 11, 2009 5:18 PM
Other people have mentioned it already, but some 'junk DNA' is functional:
http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/MB/article.asp?doi=b903031j
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/324/5931/1213
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/324/5929/935
Posted by: Biomusician
|
July 11, 2009 5:20 PM
Other people have mentioned it already, but some 'junk DNA' is functional:
http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/MB/article.asp?doi=b903031j
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/324/5931/1213
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/324/5929/935
Posted by: Rob Davidson | July 11, 2009 5:54 PM
What's his musical taste?
Also why do people here sometimes mention mouth breathers? What are you on about?
Posted by: bill | July 11, 2009 5:59 PM
Are you sure you don't have just a teensy weensy widdle bitsy doubt in the back of your mind, that God does exist? You all seem so certain, so cocksure, that belief in God is of no consequence. But, then why do you all constantly and without stopping, converse every day about God? And, on a web site that is supposedly about science? Certainly, God must be smiling because you spend so much time thinking about him. And, a good thing for all of us, that God has a sense of humor...He's quite a good natured chap, and likes all of us, despite our human failings. But, try as we might, He's in the saddle. We can never buck him off, no matter how hard we try.
Posted by: Athena Andreadis | July 11, 2009 6:06 PM
Ya know, Bill, they say the same thing in santeria/vodun about orisha riding their human horses. Funny how the general concept across religions is that humans are slaves or animals to be tamed or housebroken.
Posted by: Rick R | July 11, 2009 6:22 PM
"Are you sure you don't have just a teensy weensy widdle bitsy doubt in the back of your mind, that God does exist?"
Which one?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
July 11, 2009 6:25 PM
Bill,
We spend very little time talking about gods here. What we talk about is religion, primarily how religion poisons peoples' minds in various ways. Gods are just the excuse that religious leaders use to gain and retain money and power. "God wants you to give me 10% of your earnings."
Posted by: echidna | July 11, 2009 6:34 PM
Bill@37,
As long as there are people in power who are willing to deny reality for the sake of a belief in an imaginary being, we will continue to talk about the consequences of that belief. The imaginary being itself is not the issue.
Posted by: MadScientist | July 11, 2009 6:41 PM
@CW: careful - although the contest website says "1 vote per valid email" I wouldn't even recommend putting in 2 votes. Quark Expeditions have recently clarified the rules; any more than 2 votes from an individual is cheating.
Now back to Collins: apparently he's fighting creationism/ID because it's not the *right* god of gaps. You can't rely on your enemy's enemy to be your ally, so get the godless defenders ready for the next resurgence of creationism in classrooms.
I just had to laugh at the pope handing Obama his ethics manual. I think that's one piece of inane rambling which can safely be thrown in the garbage can without reading; it can only be a repetition of a number of mantras like "using a condom is murder" and Ratzinger's current favorite "condoms spread AIDS". I sure hope we're not going backwards to the days where god could tell monarchs what laws to make; especially not in the USA where the old tradition (can we maintain it?) has been to keep god out of the laws.
Posted by: raven | July 11, 2009 6:44 PM
Because Death Cultists like you are trying to destroy the USA and head on back to the Dark Ages. When you aren't assassinating people and trying to destroy science, the basis of modern civilization.
You will notice that we don't laugh at and complain about the Nordic gods, or coyote, or Tlaloc or Zeus. That is because their very few followers aren't trying to sneak their creation myths into kids science classes and set up a national government based on Olympic or Aztec god principles.
If you cultists would just stay in your trailer parks, no one would give one rat's about your delusions. The Amish reject much of modern technology. Since they aren't out blowing up power lines, no one cares.
Between 1 and 2 million people leave xianity behind in the USA every year. Don't you ever wonder about a religion that only appeals to the stupid, the crazy, and the evil?
Posted by: Carlie | July 11, 2009 7:07 PM
But, then why do you all constantly and without stopping, converse every day about God? And, on a web site that is supposedly about science?
This is, interestingly, the same question we often get asked by atheists in other countries where religion doesn't have a stranglehold on every facet of society. And it's the same answer raven just gave.
To make it a little more simple, religion in this country is like a 13 year old trying to get someone's attention by poking them in the arm during the middle of class, repeatedly. No matter how much the other person tries to ignore them, they keep poking. And poking. And poking. Until, finally, the person turns around and hisses "STOP IT!" And then the poker congratulates themselves for being so intriguing that the person paid attention to them, and goes home to smugly fantasize about how much the other person has a crush on them.
Posted by: Lynna | July 11, 2009 7:08 PM
Raven @43: lots 'o cultists in my neck of the woods do not live in trailer parks. McMansions, yes -- trailer parks, not so much.
Just didn't want to maliciously malign trailer parks. :-)
There's a trailer park in Fairfield, Iowa, on the Mararishi University of Management campus that is named "Utopia Trailer Park." Not kidding.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 11, 2009 7:12 PM
My terrible contribution.
http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/6847/collins.png
Posted by: Zar | July 11, 2009 7:15 PM
It's pretty amazing just how much of a mark Lovecraft left on culture. Quite a lot of people think that the Necronomicon is a real book (a mistake Lovecraft didn't try to correct, because he thought it was pretty awesome). I have had quite a number of people try to convince me that the Necronomicon genuinely exists.
Posted by: Andy Groves | July 11, 2009 7:26 PM
Thus spake PZ:
I personally agree with this, and with your post in general. But..... it is often overlooked by scientists - even ones with NIH funding - that the NIH is purely a biomedical venture. It is not the National Institutes of Biology or the National Institutes of Science. The people who draw up lists of candidates for these sorts of positions don't care about biological breadth. They care about reputation, scientific and administrative track record and the ability of the candidate to fit with the goals of the administration.
I continue to be surprised by the number of scientists who think that the NIH should fund their cool projects but who balk at having to justify their work to the NIH in terms of its relationship to human disease. The NIH is under enormous pressure from Congress and the taxpayers to deliver results. If I had a buck for every time a non-scientist scolded me for "...all the money that has been given to the NIH and we STILL don't have a cure for cancer....", I could probably fund my lab for a week. It doesn't matter that such a statement profoundly misunderstands the problems and practicalities of biomedical research. It doesn't matter that the amount we spend on research is a fraction of what we spend on the military, or on healthcare. It doesn't matter that the media - always in search of a news segment - raise expectations by constantly trumpeting the "latest cure" for diseases on the 10 o'clock news, with little discussion of why such cures rarely turn out to be as good as they are claimed. People want progress, and they want it now. Every time a new NIH Director comes up for nomination, they have to run the gauntlet during confirmation of questions like "What has the NIH done/ what will the NIH do for (insert the Senator's pet disease here)".
With all that pressure, I am actually rather amazed (and impressed) that the NIH still continues to fund as much basic research as they do. NIH grant review panels continue to score grants for their potential contribution towards human disease OR for their potential to advance knowledge, even if the grant does not directly address a clinical or translational problem. But there still has to be some relevance to human disease, even if the connection is long term. That's the bargain we make with the taxpayer.
I had my own personal list of criteria for people who I hoped would be nominated, and scientific breadth was sadly way down on the list. Keeping the NIH going, lobbying for more funding, protecting investigator-initiated research alongside "big science" projects and getting out and listening to scientists were more important. One day we will be able to afford Renaissance men/women. But not just yet.....
Posted by: Paul | July 11, 2009 7:30 PM
Spend 5 minutes on the BioLogos site. Collins participates in plenty of "god in the gaps" thinking. Off the top of my head, he shoves God in the gap of Quantum Physics. He shoves God into the (actually not really existent) gap of how humans evolved their moral sense. Just because he won't admit he's participating in "god of the gaps" thinking doesn't mean he's not, it just shows delusion.
Posted by: windy | July 11, 2009 7:56 PM
How does revising the estimate of non-conserved DNA from 98.5% to 95% make it hubristic to call any part of the genome junk?
From Genomicron: The term "junk DNA" was not coined on the basis of not knowing what it does. It was not a cop-out or a surrender. ...
Many authors argue that most non-coding DNA is non-functional, not because of a lack of imagination, but on the basis of a large amount of information regarding its mechanisms of accumulation.
Posted by: Athena Andreadis | July 11, 2009 8:15 PM
@Andy Groves, #48: You're right. The true Institute for Science is NSF, which does fund cool, neat ideas -- with the tiny widow's mite that they're given. That agency, not the NIH, shows how little science is valued in the US. I wrote a bit more about bioscientists' burdens, including (groan) "framing", here: On Being Bitten to Death by Ducks.
Posted by: eNeMeE | July 11, 2009 8:17 PM
Spend 5 minutes on the BioLogos site.
Or just go here to see Stephen Hawking quote-mined. Try and comment on that...
Posted by: ERV | July 11, 2009 8:47 PM
#23-- Finally, Venter would be a terrible choice to head the NIH. When he was part of the NIH, he involved the agency in the controversy over patenting of ESTs (expressed sequence tags). He wanted to patent the tags, the genes that coded them and the proteins from those genes. It's like having someone say: I just put together a better oil drill, so all drills, all oil wells and all the world's oil "are belong to me".Google "cystic fibrosis gene patent".
You should read 'A Life Decoded'.
Posted by: Rooker | July 11, 2009 8:48 PM
This guy is proof that you don't have to be at all qualified for the job in order to be a political appointee. That someone who doesn't understand biology can be nominated for the National Institute of Health is just absurd. May as well appoint Jenny McCarthy.
Posted by: ERV | July 11, 2009 8:53 PM
Funny you mention political appointments, Rooker. People forget that Collins 'qualification', being head of the human genome project, was also an appointed position.
After Watson set the whole thing up, and was run off.
I need to finish my post on why I hate Collins so much...
Posted by: Andy Groves | July 11, 2009 9:17 PM
@Rooker, #54
Your statement is offensive and ridiculous. I will repeat something I said in a previous thread - I'm really bothered that a number of people here like you seem to suggest that Collins' religious beliefs disqualify him from being a serious scientist, a competent scientific administrator and a national scientific leader of distinction when accumulated years of evidence suggest otherwise.
I have no sympathy for his religious views. I agree that his attempts to reconcile science and religion are risible. But to extrapolate from that to him being someone who "doesn't understand biology", to compare him to Jenny McCarthy, is just ridiculous hyperbole.
Collins has been an author on several hundred scientific papers. How many have you authored?
Collins has run one of the leading centers of genomic science in the world for the past 15 years. During that tenure he successfully fought for free public and scientific access to genome information against those who would lock it up and patent it for a price. What have you contributed to the progress of science?
I would wager that Collins has forgotten more biology than you will ever know. But I guess that shouldn't stop you sneering from the peanut gallery, right?
Criticize his religious beliefs by all means. Point out the absurdity of his thoughts on science and religion. I agree with you. Worry about whether he will use his position if confirmed to assume a public role as a cheerleader for the coexistence of science and religion. I worry too. But stick to reason and reality, not over-the-top, patently absurd ranting. Don't become like the other side.
Posted by: Athena Andreadis | July 11, 2009 9:31 PM
To Erv #55: Oh, yes, Venter's totally objective autobiography, in which he whines about being the underdog. Check. As a molecular biologist who used ESTs heavily, I watched that story very closely. Celera's database was full of errors; the thought of it becoming the standard made me break out into a cold sweat. It would be the equivalent of Microsoft.
Collins may be what he is (see my post #23 and its link to Coyne's site) but the NIH repositories are treasures. Venter could have been an integral part of that venture but chose otherwise.
Posted by: James F | July 11, 2009 9:47 PM
Andy Groves #56 wrote:
Seconded, and well said.
Posted by: ERV | July 11, 2009 10:09 PM
Thanks for addressing the little unfortunate fact that Collins patented his shit.
But Venter is bad for trying to patent *his* shit.
Collins is what he is-- A lucky little shit. Good for him. But I dont respect him.
Posted by: Chris Lawson | July 11, 2009 10:40 PM
NeMeE @52: That really is one heck of a quote mine.
The quote is referenced to a paper by Hawking and Hertog -- but Hertog's name is not mentioned presumably because he is not famous enough.
The full quote is: "In particular a bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the universe that is carefully fine-tuned - as if prescribed by an outside agency - or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation, which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see."
The quote given by Biologos is: "A bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the Universe that is carefully fine-tuned — as if prescribed by an outside agency — or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation, a mighty speculative notion to the generation of many different Universes, which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see." (added text in emphasis)
Nowhere in the paper does the phrase "a mighty speculative notion" appear. One wonders how this managed to work its way into the quotation.
What's more, in this paper Hawking and Hertog are critical of the "bottom-up" anthropic reasoning used throughout Biologos.
Then have a look at the Biologos article on thermodynamics and evolution. While it's good to see him criticise the creationist misrepresentation of the 2nd Law, it doesn't help that he's provided his own misrepresentation to replace it.
I've emailed the Biologos site. I await their response.
Posted by: DemetriusOfPharos | July 11, 2009 11:40 PM
There was a discussion about Collins being appointed in the local atheist discussion group a couple days ago. I found myself defending the appointment - the man has shown himself to be a competent administrator and has all the necessary scientific qualifications. After a couple days to reflect, now I'm not so sure.
I think I initially wanted to defend it because I don't like to think of myself as someone who would dismiss a qualified individual based on their beliefs (or lack of). Now, I have to wonder about the wisdom of appointing a Believer to the head of anything scientific. If we are to accept for the moment the argument that apologists make - that religion and science are incompatible, or that they answer different questions - then I would argue that personal religious beliefs are absolutely something to consider in a scientist.
Lynna (a fellow Utah judging by previous posts) pointed out that Collins has said "God is the answer to all of those "How must it have come to be" questions." As Lynna said, this is basically the "God of the Gaps" argument. That is not an answer I want to hear from a scientist.
Hypothetically, what would be the reaction if an acknowledged, out-of-the-closet atheist were suddenly appointed to a position where he or she was deciding the future of religion? Perhaps a bit of a red-herring but I think its a similar situation.
Right, that got a bit long-winded. All I really have left to say is that Obama has so far been a huge letdown for me after foolishly getting my hopes up in the campaign, and this appointment is ultimately just one more piece of that puzzle for me.
Posted by: el cid | July 12, 2009 12:17 AM
Chris #60, the thermo stuff is weak, especially equating rotting food to an increase in entropy which while true in a sense is deceptive. But I see no false claims to support theism.
Paul #49, I've checked out biologos and while it is light fluff aimed toward the scientifically illiterate, I would make a few comments. I do not see them trying to convert anybody, it's pure apologetics suggesting a way to reconcile belief with science (note the direction, it matters). Next, in the godofthegaps bit, they are extremely cautious and speak of avoiding godofthegaps in general while saying maybe god set cosmological constants. They make no positive arguments claiming anything argues positively toward their god, only that there is no necessary inconsistency.
The snippets I've seen here imply otherwise, and not far from creationist style quote mining, completely ignoring all the caveats to pick on some spicy phrase. Basically we are seeing character assassination because Collins is a public theist. If the attempt is to sink to a creationist standard, the effort has been a success.
Posted by: eNeMeE | July 12, 2009 12:46 AM
NeMeE @52: That really is one heck of a quote mine.
It's a pretty classic example, alright. The context surrounding that statement indicates that the two authors reject both options presented in that quote.
Posted by: Skipper | July 12, 2009 3:34 AM
While its too bad that Obama can't just appoint Dawkins to the NIH, its not clear that someone controversial could actually be effective. Collins' religious beliefs will probably create more opportunities for the NIH since he'll be able to reach across the aisle to the less astute (dumbass) politicians who oppose science on religious grounds. He is clearly qualified for the position, and if he gets the religiots behind the NIH then we win anyway. Maybe Obama is cleverer than we thought.
Posted by: rodiel | July 12, 2009 6:56 AM
I always liked Venter a lot better.
Posted by: John Morales | July 12, 2009 7:27 AM
El Cid,
Really? Took me but a few seconds to find these:
http://biologos.org/questions/death-before-the-fall/
To connect human physical death to the Fall, we must be clear about what it means to be human. It is argued that bearing God’s image is not a matter of our physical appearance but a matter of our capacity to love both God and others, to have dominion over the Earth and to have moral consciousness. In this way we might distinguish between Homo sapiens and the image-bearing creatures that we might call Homo divinus. While Homo sapiens might have a similar body structure or physical capabilities of Homo divinus, the latter exists in God’s image.
With this critically important distinction, BioLogos is thus compatible with the belief that part of Adam’s curse was the onset of physical death for the human race, because the human race in the full Imago Dei really began with Adam. Although many human-like creatures lived and died before the Fall, these Homo sapiens did not yet bear the image of God. After the bestowal of God’s image, there was no death of Homo divinus until after the Fall. As soon as image-bearing humanity fully emerged through God’s creative process of evolution, no member of that species experienced death until after the Fall.
http://biologos.org/questions/evolution-and-divine-action/
Divine Action is defined as God’s interaction with creation. Due to the understanding that evolution accounts for the diversity of present life forms, it might appear God played no role in the process of evolution. Clearly this contradicts the central doctrine of creation for many faiths. Christianity, for example, professes a God actively involved in creation.
[...]
BioLogos does not seek a concept of a God who is involved at certain times and who only observes at other times. In harmony with theism, BioLogos affirms a God who is at all times involved, yet who still allows a degree of freedom to the creation.
http://biologos.org/questions/biologos-and-miracles/
Miracles are generally defined as God’s special involvement in a situation. God’s interaction with the world, however, does not require physical laws to be broken. For the purposes of this response, the term miracle will entail God’s suspension or interruption of physical law.
[Not broken, only suspended or interrupted! :0]
[...] This response provides a simple answer to the question of miracles, namely that BioLogos does not in any way remove the logical possibility of miracles. However, for the universe to behave in an apparently ordered fashion, such events must be rare. BioLogos is thus compatible with many faiths that have miraculous events at the center of their doctrine. Finally, although a scientific explanation does in fact take away a phenomenon’s miraculous status, it does not establish that God was not involved in the process.
You were saying?
Posted by: John Morales | July 12, 2009 7:38 AM
El Cid,
As my above shows, BioLogos endorses special creation (Homo Divinus), endorses an active God that constantly intervenes, and endorses miracle claims.
The last is particularly troubling, especially in regards to attitudes towards "faith healing".
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
July 12, 2009 9:16 AM
No. Dawkins doesn't have the right skill set -- this is an administrative and managerial position. It requires someone who is a beancounter and bureaucrat, and has some knowledge of the culture of science. A Dawkins-type only qualifies on the last count, while Collins is very good on the others.
I also think that if we had a Dawkins-type who was an American administrator, we'd have a similar problem with the vocal atheism as with the vocal Christianity: it wouldn't be as insane, but it would get in the way of the political part of the job even more.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
July 12, 2009 9:57 AM
Dawkins would have another problem. Many Americans, both inside and outside the NIH, would object to a British citizen being appointed to head a major American government bureaucracy.
Posted by: misc | July 12, 2009 10:00 AM
>> I'm beginning to feel he will not hesitate to sacrifice reason on the altar of religious conformity.
Well, welcome back to reality. As Chomsky noted prior to the election: "Vote for Obama - but without illusions."
Posted by: Keith Douglas | July 12, 2009 10:20 AM
That BioLogos stuff is sure hairpulling.
As for the appointment, as a Canadian I can only hope such works out better than it will appear. I am unclear on the scope of the NIH, but it seems to me that one area of research gravely at risk is psychiatry and clinical psychology. (If one doesn't think altruism and emotions generally evolved, how does one propose to deal with the technologies arising out of physiological social psychology.)
Posted by: Andy Groves | July 12, 2009 11:29 AM
PZ:
I agree. But the point you made in the original post is well taken - that there is currently a de facto religious test for political office and political appointments that is completely one-sided. Collins' religious views will not hinder his nomination at all, and may even help him (and I will be interested to see how much is made of them during his nomination process). We would see a very different scenario play out if he had published books discussing his atheism.
Based on the press release from the White House, it is clear that Obama's advisors are aware of his beliefs, although we cannot know if this is what clinched the decision in his favor. But it does seem to be all of a piece with Obama's strategy of trying to take issues off the table with decisions like this ("See? We Democrats aren't anti-religion!"), or asking a homophobe like Rick Warren to speak at his inauguration.
I don't know if this is good strategy or not. In the case of Rick Warren, I don't see much evidence of minds opening in the last six months. Maybe it will be different with Collins . Maybe he will confuse the religious right by being a Christian who smacks down intelligent design, or affirms the need for stem cell research. But I have the feeling that especially at the moment, the religious right are not in a mood to make nice, and so supporting stem cell research or some other hot-button issue will damn him in their eyes no matter how many happy-clappy religious books he writes.
Posted by: Brad Ericson | July 12, 2009 11:59 AM
PZ,
You are incorrect in your assesment of Collins' integrity. He is not an honest man, nor a man of solid principles. Read J. Craig Venter's book, My Life, My Genome and get an inside look at our "highly moral and ethical" Francis Collins. The man should be in jail.
Posted by: eddie | July 12, 2009 12:11 PM
"Homo Divinus"! WTF!
That's what's known as fractally stupid.
What it 'seems' to be saying is that, before adam, there was homo sapiens. Did they not die? Then ceiling cat made a new version, maybe one without a navel, that some years later pissed it off and *uc*ed things up for all the innocent by-standers. Or maybe it was just the navel-less ones that were immortal, and then, a few years later, weren't.
On this evidence, even ken ham would be a better NIH chief.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 12, 2009 12:20 PM
...because...
(come on, man--I'm not going to read Ventner very soon. Couple of specifics, please?)
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 12, 2009 12:25 PM
I think one point may be getting missed.
It is not that Collins is a Christian that is the problem, it is that he is one who is publicly vocal about about his Christianity.
It is the outspokenness that is the problem. For that reason an atheist who is as outspoken as PZ or Dawkins would also be an inappropriate choice. For that matter not would any scientist who had made public proclamations strongly supporting a particular political party.
Posted by: genecutter | July 12, 2009 12:38 PM
I do not trust Collins to quarantine his strange religious notions from the rest of his mental inventory as NIH director. Perhaps some want to give him a pass because his particular brand of irrational superstition is more familiar to us than other forms of lunacy. Imagine, for example, a prospective NIH director that is also a ritualistic serpent handler - would that raise any concerns about fitness for the job? Or how about if the candidate is a disciple of Satan that slaughters goats and paints demonic symbols on the doorpost with the collected blood. Any alarm bells here? The fact that Jesus miracles are better known than other superstitions does not make them any more rational, and a mind accustomed to suspending logic and reason to accommodate wishful thinking about one topic may indeed contaminate other subjects as well. If people were more aware of Collins' bizarre, irrational thinking about God, they would be more worried about his ability to keep his absurd superstitions out of the workplace.
Posted by: Rick R | July 12, 2009 12:47 PM
Or what if he were a Scientologist?
Posted by: el cid | July 12, 2009 2:53 PM
John Morales #66, the passages you cite begin from their particular theological foundations. They are not claiming that science shows any of this to be true, they take it as true for completely different reasons. Please understand the key distinctions. Some people take science and pretend it can be used to support their beliefs. These people are reconciling their beliefs with the truth they find in science. I see grand room for tolerance of that. They are not distorting science to fit their beliefs, almost the opposite. So as I said, "They make no positive arguments claiming anything argues positively toward their god, only that there is no necessary inconsistency."
There is a wholesale difference in saying X is not inconsistent with Y and saying X is proof of Y.
The distinction from the IDers or the creationists is on this front. The biologos folks try to reconcile their beliefs with science. The IDers and creationists try to contort science to support their beliefs. The attempts to lump them together are disingenuous and one would hope beneath a rational philosopher.
Posted by: NE1 | July 12, 2009 5:22 PM
PZ, you are wrong that he denies altruism could have evolved. He claims to understand "altruism within groups", but is befuddled by "altruism between unrelated groups", and uses this to start arguing that only God could create our morals. I understand the distinction, but still think he's wrong--it's certainly not unimaginable to me. But your summary only invited outraged comments above, so I thought it was worth setting the record straight.
This is coming either from this or this video, I think.
Posted by: Paul | July 12, 2009 5:32 PM
Because evolution somehow means different groups cannot evolve a form of altruism due to symbiotic relationships? Collins' argument is still bs, and still denies altruism (we're not only concerned with in-group relationships).
Posted by: John Morales | July 12, 2009 6:10 PM
El Cid @79,
I got that the first time. What I'm saying is they don't need to explicitly argue positively for their God, because its existence and meddling and purpose is taken as a self-evident Truth that science must accomodate.
I got that it's an apologetics site, not a proselytising one.
You don't think that it's still rather concerning?
:) Ooh, button-pushing!
Posted by: Govt. Bureaucrat | July 12, 2009 6:18 PM
Yipes! A pretty nasty crowd here! And one with an inflated self-opinion...
>He's a lovable dufus with great organizational skills whose grasp of the principles of science is superficial.
I must admit that I did not recognize Professor Myers from his scientific reputation. After a brief look I find that he is an Associate Professor at a Tier 3 state institution. With the amount of time I was willing to invest on the university Web site, I was unable to determine if he has an active research program or any external support for that program. It may be that it is there and just not very easy to find. A quick lit search turned up a handful of publications 10-20 years old. (Fewer than I had when I left my post-doc.) Again, there may be more there, but given the demonstrated level of ignorance on the issues at hand I was not inclined to waste any more time searching.
So Professor Myers, with the approximate qualifications above, informs us that Francis Collins suffers from a superficial grasp of scientific principles. The same Collins with about a thousand scientific publications, several major breakthroughs to his credit, and a very successful career as a science administrator for the Human Genome Project under enormously trying circumstances.
Jeez!
Professor Myers then proceeds to demonstrate his total lack of understanding political realities of job at hand by stating that he would have preferred "someone ... a little less shackled to the purely biomedical side."
Right. For the Director of the National Institutes of HEALTH.
I will go way out on a limb here an venture that Professor Myers has never managed anything larger than an undergraduate course or a very small research lab.
The NHGRI Director's job, and even less so that of NIH Director, are not about paper-pushing or bean-counting as some here have stated. To believe so betrays a breathtaking lack of understanding of the way these organizations actually work.
But Professor Myers gives us one concrete prediction in his title..."Collins gets panned almost everywhere." This, it seems, is a testable hypothesis. Let's check back after Senate confirmation hearings and see how this analysis holds up. Therein will be the greatest test of the acuity of Professor Myers' political insights and calculus.
I do recognize that that most here fall into the NANA (new atheist-noisy atheist) crowd and that your feelings are hurt. But really! Craig Venter as NIH director? Hah! Anyone suggesting this either does not know Craig, or the job, or both. Craig is a very clever guy--but no way does he have the skill set for that job. (Props to Athena and others for pointing this out. I also appreciated Andy Groves' comments among the voices of reason here.)
I have no doubt that this is a group with a very sophisticated understanding of the physical world that we inhabit. But we also need scientists with an equally sophisticated understanding of the social and political worlds we live in too. If some of you got your wish and a NANA like Dawkins was (miraculously?) appointed as director of NIH, NSF, NOAA, NIST, etc., it would be a disaster for Federally funded science.
The nastiness here does not serve you well. You should really want to impress the occasional, or new visitor with with your keen insights and reason. Not leave them wondering if they have wandering into a Bizarro World version of Answers in Genesis.
Look around at the world you inhabit. I am not unsympathetic to some of the arguments put forward here, but recognize that they are representative of only a small minority in our society. If you are not personally prepared to deal with the political ramifications of that reality, at least recognize that we need science leaders who are.
GB
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
July 12, 2009 6:29 PM
I certainly hope that during my years as a government bureaucrat I was nowhere near as supercilious and patronizing as the asshole above is.
Posted by: 386sx | July 12, 2009 6:49 PM
Not leave them wondering if they have wandering into a Bizarro World version of Answers in Genesis.
Oh, I see you must have been visiting the Biologos web page.
Posted by: SC, OM | July 12, 2009 7:02 PM
Can't help it - his post just made me think of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhHpJ45_zwM
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 12, 2009 7:16 PM
Thanks for profferring zero information. Here is a chance to instruct us as to the actual duties of a NIH director; to set us straight. You have understanding we lack? Share or STFU.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 12, 2009 7:26 PM
Considering your posts here at Pharyngula, all I can say is NO WAY IN HELL. *Hope you got a good day in, out on the saline water.*Posted by: eddie | July 12, 2009 8:09 PM
Shorter GB - My daddy's bigger than your daddy. Blah blah with an attempt at a reasoned argument that's lost amid all the patronising.
Whereas Athena and Andy's contributions have been a welcome, constructive contribution to the discussion, yours has been that of a thousand other concern trolls. A litany of strawmen and other falacies.
Most notable among these are that 1) nobody is considering pz as a candidate for the post and 2) fc's administration skills are well acknowledged. It's his judgement and character that are found wanting.
Posted by: Govt. Bureaucrat | July 12, 2009 11:38 PM
Sven,
If you really want to learn how science interacts with political reality in Washington, there are ways for you to learn...
http://fellowships.aaas.org/
AAAS runs a great program, and many science societies have their own versions. You can come to D.C. for a year or two and work in Congress or a federal science agency and learn how science policy works. It can be brutally hard, exhausting work--and frequently frustrating.
But we need people with an understanding of both science and how it interacts with government. If it is right for you, you could end up making a big difference.
GB
Posted by: RickD | July 16, 2009 12:43 PM
From the standpoint of somebody who has worked in bioinformatics at the NIH, this is simply hilarious.
Collins is fairly widely respected in the biomedical community. Venter, OTOH, is pretty much regarded as a self-aggrandizing ass. Venter is a "real scientist"? Why? Because he put together a large-scale shotgun sequencing project?
Look, Venter is a smart guy, but the notion that he's more of a "real scientist" or more ethical than Francis Collins is simply the most absurd thing I've ever read at this blog.
And judging Collins by BioLogos while ignoring the work he's done at NHGRI makes about as much sense as the wingnuts foaming at the mouth about the "wise Latina" quote while ignoring decades of judicial opinions. Francis Collins is not an unknown quality. There is no reason to fear that he would use his position at the director of NIH to advance woo. We know that because - he's already performed very well as the director of NHGRI without doing so!
PZ dislikes Collins, and that's fine and all. But a lot of you guys are going way too far when you besmirch his reputation as a scientist.
And really - Venter?
Posted by: NBeale | July 20, 2009 5:05 PM
Sorry the phrase "a mighty speculative notion to the generation of many different Universes" somehow crept in by mistake in the editing of "Questions of Truth" from which biologos quoted this phrase. These things happen and we will put up an erratum on the www.questionsoftruth.org website. It makes no difference at all to the argument and is really a red herring.
The rage of the "militant atheists" as you see the world moving away from your absurd positions is ... well, interesting.
And RickD is right about Venter - AFAIK anyone good in Systems Biology has the measure of him.
Posted by: NBeale | July 20, 2009 5:08 PM
Sorry the phrase "a mighty speculative notion to the generation of many different Universes" somehow crept in by mistake in the editing of "Questions of Truth" from which biologos quoted this phrase. These things happen and we will put up an erratum on the www.questionsoftruth.org website. It makes no difference at all to the argument and is really a red herring.
The rage of the "militant atheists" as you see the world moving away from your absurd positions is ... well, interesting.
And RickD is right about Venter - AFAIK anyone good in Systems Biology has the measure of him.
Posted by: NBeale | July 20, 2009 5:15 PM
Sorry the phrase "a mighty speculative notion to the generation of many different Universes" somehow crept in by mistake in the editing of "Questions of Truth" from which biologos quoted this phrase. These things happen and we will put up an erratum on the www.questionsoftruth.org website. It makes no difference at all to the argument and is really a red herring.
The rage of the "militant atheists" as you see the world moving away from your absurd positions is ... well, interesting.
And RickD is right about Venter - AFAIK anyone good in Systems Biology has the measure of him.
Posted by: Stu
|
July 20, 2009 5:19 PM
The rage of the "militant atheists" as you see the world moving away from your absurd positions is ... well, interesting.
Project much?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 20, 2009 5:25 PM
NBeale do you have a reading problem?
Now that's funny.
Posted by: NBeale | July 20, 2009 6:06 PM
Sorry the phrase "a mighty speculative notion to the generation of many different Universes" somehow crept in by mistake in the editing of "Questions of Truth" from which biologos quoted this phrase. These things happen and we will put up an erratum on the www.questionsoftruth.org website. It makes no difference at all to the argument and is really a red herring.
The rage of the "militant atheists" as you see the world moving away from your absurd positions is ... well, interesting.
And RickD is right about Venter - AFAIK anyone good in Systems Biology has the measure of him.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
July 20, 2009 6:21 PM
No wonder a blog with which NBeale is associated has editing problems. NBeale has repeatedly shown that he can't read.
Posted by: NBeale | July 21, 2009 4:33 AM
Sorry the phrase "a mighty speculative notion to the generation of many different Universes" somehow crept in by mistake in the editing of "Questions of Truth" from which biologos quoted this phrase. These things happen and we will put up an erratum on the www.questionsoftruth.org website. It makes no difference at all to the argument and is really a red herring.
The rage of the "militant atheists" as you see the world moving away from your absurd positions is ... well, interesting.
And RickD is right about Venter - AFAIK anyone good in Systems Biology has the measure of him.
Posted by: NBeale | July 21, 2009 4:46 AM
Haven't you noticed that Atheism is is global collapse? Try reading "God is Back".
A movement that once had Russell has its intellectual leader now has Dawkins. Pathetic!
(please delete the 2 dups of my earlier post - the Software said the post had failed.)
Posted by: Intelligent Designer, OP | July 21, 2009 5:08 AM
Did PZ just get his ass kicked at #83? I would really like to hear his response.
Posted by: John Morales | July 21, 2009 5:20 AM
ID:
I don't think so; nor was it worthy of a response, that I can see.
Whyever would you think so?
Posted by: NBeale | July 21, 2009 5:55 AM
Well so long as we can all agree that PZ has really never made it as a scientists so has developed a career as a professional atheist loudmouth perhaps it doesn't deserve a response.
A sort of downmarket mini-me for Dawkins - who would never have been a Prof at Oxford if an admirer hadn't paid the University to make him one.
Posted by: Cosmic Teapot | July 21, 2009 6:33 AM
Intelligent Designer (NO, must resist ...) OP (NO, must resist ...)
Why? Comment 89 says it all really.
NBeale
Interesting. You do have evidence to back this up, of course.
Posted by: John Morales | July 21, 2009 6:35 AM
NBeale, all I agree with is that you're antagonistic towards PZ and seek to belittle him.
Go for it, but realise it is risible and a bit pathetic of you, that you try to engage in this.
PZ is himself, not a copy of anyone, and this should be quite apparent to anyone not preconditioned to filter their reality input.
I don't compare him to anyone, why the hell should I? I just like his blog.
Your concerns are considered and found amusing.
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 21, 2009 6:48 AM
Nice to see that scientists are human too, and when it comes down to it, it's all a competition about who has the biggest dick. Well done Beale, you've totally shown which dick you're sucking on...
Of course, one could substantiate an argument regardless of the intellectual accolades one has - to resort to ad hominem seems ill-befitting one wanting to make a substantial point. Surely you can do better than that, after all PZ is from a third-tier college and is suckling on Dawkins. He should be easy to dismantle on argument alone.
And in the end, isn't that what really matters?
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 21, 2009 6:52 AM
NBeale,
Good move. If I had the piss poor arguments you had I'd be distracting people with irrelevant nonsense too.
Posted by: Rorschach | July 21, 2009 6:58 AM
GB @ 83 is merrily but eloquently ignoring the fact that the criticism of Collins here was based on his religious delusions,not his administrative abilities.
Posted by: Peter McKellar | July 21, 2009 8:41 AM
I don't need to be more skilled than a president to reject an unsuitable candidate or vote for my best choice. PZ and all Americans should be entitled to a say - PZ more than most from the science viewpoint (and certainly some government bureaucrat). To the average citizen, what should be considered? How about past results?
What seems to be missing in the Collins v Venter debate is outcome. Venter delivered and Collins didn't (on deadline). Sure, they verified Venter's work, corrected minor errors and described a lot of the findings - but the bottom line is that Venter did it for $100m and what was Collins' budget (memory eludes me) $1 billion, $10 billion? Venter did it both faster and cheaper (by at least one order of magnitude).
From my vague recollection: Venter claimed it was all being done wrong, stormed out and before he had even completed the sequencing Collins switched to Venter's technique anyway (massively parallel shotgun sequencing and high computational density). They would probably still be going at it now if Collins hadn't been visibly seen to have been wrong. The work done by the scientists on the Human Genome Project was excellent and meticulous, which further highlights that it was leadership that was the problem. Being the head of the Human Genome Project should count against a candidate, not for them.
Venter sang us the song of life, Collins strummed along on the guitar.
So with the appointment of Collins will the same mistaken mindset be shifted to Health? There is a very real risk that moral issues will trump medical and scientific research with money being directed into ultimately sanctimonious "lifestyle" based prevention programs rather than solid research. Advertising executives getting fat on promoting Purity Balls to address teen pregnancy. Will he pen a jingle about the benefits of ejaculation for prevention of prostate cancer and run it on National TV? Rather than boost life expectancy through technology, will he push the temperance meme and set the best possible outcome as the 1.5 billion mammalian heartbeat limit - and fail?
Would we still be calling HIV AIDS, shunning gays and deporting Hiatians if Collins had been running things 20 years ago? Probably not, but I doubt we would be anywhere near where we are now if he had been.
Posted by: NBeale | July 21, 2009 1:08 PM
Big article in Science 17 July about the appointment. Very positive. mentions the gripes of PZ & co but says "there seems to be little evidence for these worries."
I can see why you guys are upset and in denial, but you really will have to accept that things are not going your way.
Interesting also that vituperative and silly personal attacks on Collins are apparently OK, but when people point out PZ's minimal scientific credentials we are accused of not having arguments.
Posted by: John Morales | July 21, 2009 7:16 PM
NBeale, you are sniping again.
Didn't you read my last comment?
Amused ≠ upset.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 21, 2009 7:46 PM
I can see why you guys are upset and in denial, but you really will have to accept that things are not going your way.
what way is that, exactly?
build us a strawman, pretty please?
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 21, 2009 7:52 PM
Haven't you noticed that Atheism is is global collapse?
oops...
http://www.freeinfidel.com/2008/01/11/the-natural-decline-of-religion/
http://poppypundit.wordpress.com/2008/02/26/the-decline-of-religion-in-america/
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/07/21/MNGB37Q7L11.DTL
umm, do you understand what the word "projection" means?
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 21, 2009 8:05 PM
If you are not personally prepared to deal with the political ramifications of that reality, at least recognize that we need science leaders who are.
GB
George Bush?
Taken to trolling blogs now, eh?
figures.
Once upon a time in America, there were several groups of americans who weren't allowed to vote. That was the political reality.
If people like you won the arguments back then, they still wouldn't have the right to vote.
You even admit sympathy to the arguments presented against Collins' nomination, interspersed among the idiotic ad-hominems against PZ. It doesn't even take someone with a PhD in science to recognize how ideology influences decisions made wrt to science direction and funding. Take stem cell research for a recent example.
Here's me calling you what you are:
a fucking chickenshit.
I've met your kind on the beltway many times: you're someone who has become so jaded, probably from overlong involvement as a lobbyist, you have forgotten what it means to do something right.
Go retire and whine to your grandkids, eh?
Tell them stories of the
big bad wolfatheists.Posted by: Kel, OM | July 21, 2009 8:17 PM
Attacking scientific credentials is not an argument. Of course you're going to be accused of not having an argument. Are the concerns of the likes of Myers, Coyne, Pinker, etc. unfounded? If so, then surely you can argue where their arguments against Collins are wrong. But to attack credentials? That's not an argument at all. It's nothing more than a personal attack.Surely you can see the difference. Can't you be the bigger man and actually answer the substance of the criticisms made against Collins instead of whipping out his cock and mocking PZ's?
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 21, 2009 8:28 PM
But to attack credentials? That's not an argument at all. It's nothing more than a personal attack.
actually, for once it's an excellent example of ad-hominem, the thing most of these idiots often accuse us of when in reality we just insult them directly and deservedly.
...consider that an insult, "Beale".
Here's an ad-hom for ya:
are you a pseudonym or in any way related to Theodore Beale?
Because if you are Vox Day sockpuppeting here, or a fan, then you can safely be ignored for the ignoramus you are.
Posted by: NBeale | July 22, 2009 5:37 PM
The "arguments" against Collins come from the false premise that science and Christianity are incompatible. Almost no first-rate scientists believe this, and in particular the leaders of the scientific community in the US and the UK and elsewhere are perfectly happy to engage in dialogue with Christian leaders and thinkers. Many of them think that the strident views of Dawkins & co bring science into disrepute.
For the global rise of religion in general and Christianity in particular, see eg "God is Back". NB "global" does not mean "in the USA"!
As for "things not going your way" ... well apart from the global situation, in the US you have a President who is in some ways even more explicitly Christian that GW Bush and now a very visible Christian who will almost certainly be confirmed unanimously to lead the largest scientific funding agency in the world.
The fact that protests from the Militant Atheists cut no ice despite a favourable media is again pretty interesting.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | July 22, 2009 5:54 PM
Dear Brother BeNale @117,
Praise the Lord for your powerful witness on this hellish blog!
The princely sweep of your generalization—'Almost no first-rate scientists believe this', convinces me you are a man of magnificent faith. As a Christian leader myself, I've always enjoyed sitting back chewing the fat with the world's great scientific leaders. For example, Sagan and I chatted for hours on the best way to saddle a T-Rex, and on glossolalia as incontrovertible proof that the Big Guy in the Sky designed and built everything. I also met up with Stephen Hawking. He wasn't too flash physically, but he was happy to hear from me that if he just prayed and had true faith God would heal him completely and put more lead in his pencil.
Praise the Lord for Godly Scientists, I say. The sooner we can get rid of rationality the better.
Yours in support of Biotheology
Smoggy Batzrubble, Missionary to the atheists
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 22, 2009 6:07 PM
Actually the arguments come from the notion that you shouldn't mix religion and government. It's not about the incompatibility between science and religion, it's his capacity as a government representative who mixes the two. Swing and a miss, but thanks for playing.Posted by: John Morales | July 22, 2009 6:27 PM
Your protestations are feeble, NBeale, and less than convincing.
Note also BioLogos sans Collins.
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 22, 2009 6:31 PM
PZ Myers wrote:
Yep, it's about the incompatibility of science and Christianity...
Posted by: NBeale | July 24, 2009 2:13 AM
Hmm.. PZ's objections listed in this article are:
1. Big science
2. "Doesn't understand evolution" which comes down to "uses God of the Gaps arguments"
3. Christian website is "stupid"
4. Will use his position to promote Christianity.
5. Is "jumble of intellectual contradictions" (ie a scientist who is an evangelical Christian).
We all know what PZ's agenda is here and it is plain silly to deny it. Ah well - on to something else. Bye.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 24, 2009 2:50 AM
NBeale,
Sheesh, now an argument from authority.
Argument from popular trends? Can you go one post without using a logical fallacy.
I like how "Militant Christians" is used to describe the KKK, "Militant Islam" is used for terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda, and "Militant Atheist" to people who harshly criticize religion in writing. I think it sums up the situation quite nicely.
Good riddance.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
December 18, 2011 6:21 AM
I wish a quick but very painful death for all spammers.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
December 18, 2011 7:03 AM
I just wish they'd quit spamming.