Pharyngula

Posted by: Cyberguy | August 4, 2009 7:43 AM

We are people to whom truth is everything - fighting people to whom truth is nothing!

The goal must be to win the next generation over to reason, while their minds are still open.

Posted by: Fischer | August 4, 2009 7:46 AM

Nope, it's not that hard to understand. Not understanding is just too useful for propaganda.

Posted by: Tao Jones | August 4, 2009 7:49 AM

The other fear is that 'faith-based' initiatives will insinuate themselves into the more serious research done at the National Institutes. Not only will religious (read: Christian) organizations asymmetrically benefit from this largess, but 'faith' -- which by definition eschews reason -- will find purchase in the magisterium it used to claim was non-overlapping ...

Posted by: Gorogh | August 4, 2009 7:50 AM

@Me #3

Hmmm ... so would it be wrong, say, to call for a professor at a public institution to step down, not because he is an atheist, but because he is a VOCAL atheist?

presumably/at first thought, it is not really about being vocal, but about conflicting interests and probable distortions of his duty as head of the NIH by a christian agenda which preclude Collins' being qualified for the office.

Even granted that someone (such as PZ) might have an "atheist agenda" while having a public office, he is not pursuing this agenda by neglecting his duty to do the best kind of science possible (not the least because the two intentions, speaking out for atheism and doing science, are entirely compatible).

Posted by: Stephen Wells | August 4, 2009 7:51 AM

@3: if you're insinuating that PZ evangelises for atheism during work time, you're a bit off in your aim.

Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 4, 2009 7:52 AM

What I don't understand is why an evangelical Christian would be put in charge of The NIH, no matter what his past credentials were?

Is the Obama administration stating that NIH has no value to Americans?

The more I learn of Collins the less credibility he generates as a scientist.

Posted by: Walton | August 4, 2009 7:53 AM

Hmmm ... so would it be wrong, say, to call for a professor at a public institution to step down, not because he is an atheist, but because he is a VOCAL atheist?

I'd suggest that it isn't quite the same thing. A professor at a university - as long as he is capable of teaching and doing good research, and keeping his personal ideological ideas out of the classroom - can hold, within reason, whatever private views he likes. So too can a research scientist. No one is suggesting that Collins should give up doing science, teaching or publishing.

But the position of director of NIH is a high-profile political office, with a policymaking role. Thus, a candidate's personal ideological views are highly relevant, just as the ideological views of a presidential candidate are highly relevant.

Now, personally, I don't agree with Professor Myers on this particular case. Although Dr Collins' evangelical Christian views are loony, he seems to be an advocate of good science - and, indeed, if he can encourage more of the evangelical community to accept modern evolutionary biology, this can only be a good thing.

But I do think that Professor Myers has a perfect right to oppose Dr Collins' nomination for the reasons which he has outlined - because the directorship of NIH is a public office, with an important policy-setting role, and so debate about candidates' ideological views is perfectly legitimate. Likewise, if Professor Myers were in the running for a senior political office, I don't doubt that his open promotion of atheism would lead many to oppose his nomination. This is a legitimate ground of debate, IMO.

Posted by: ali | August 4, 2009 7:55 AM

@#3
No. Wrong. This would be the equivalent to saying you don't want someone who is openly racist in public office and then conclude that this has also to apply to someone who is vocally refusing racism.

Atheism is not just another type of belief! Another point that is constantly ignored.

Posted by: Savage | August 4, 2009 8:04 AM

Finding it difficult to understand arguments against the missionary agenda Francis Collins advocates in government office, is a simple indication how strong the God-meme is. Atheists will always run into this type of delusional stance the Bible-thumpers hold, no matter how good our arguments are.

Posted by: Robert Grumbine | August 4, 2009 8:08 AM

So the objection is not that he's Christian, but that he's in that 1/4th or so of Christians who are Evangelical.

Still looks like a religious requirement.

And, folks, while you're allowing as how Paul is ok because he doesn't evangelize atheism in his classroom (though your source of information is ... Paul?), people -- non-evangelical people -- who have worked for Collins have said no problem about Collins evangelizing in the workplace.

Collins opening a high profile web site? Er, isn't Paul running a rather high profile web site? And, since Paul used the site as part of his materials for tenure, it can't even be claimed as a mere hobby. Part of his job promotion.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 4, 2009 8:12 AM

In Andrew Brown's case the explanation for his wanking is simple:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
-Upton Sinclair

Posted by: heddle | August 4, 2009 8:22 AM

So what's different about Collins? He doesn't keep it to himself.

Moral equivalent: I don't mind a black person in the job. Really. Honest. It's just that he is so damn arrogant and uppity. Doesn't know his place at all. Just shoves his blackness in our faces. Why does he have to act so damn black?

Posted by: 386sx | August 4, 2009 8:23 AM

I forget if it was Aquinas or if it was Augustine. One them always gave their opponents a fair shake, and argued their opponent's positions even better than their opponents did. I forget which one it was, but whichever one it was, he was most likely the greatest saint known to mankind that history has ever known.

Posted by: Aquaria | August 4, 2009 8:25 AM

386: I think you mean Augustine.

Posted by: Kristjan Wager | August 4, 2009 8:27 AM

Moral equivalent: I don't mind a black person in the job. Really. Honest. It's just that he is so damn arrogant and uppity. Doesn't know his place at all. Just shoves his blackness in our faces. Why does he have to act so damn black?

Heddle, which part of separation of church and state don't you understand? oh, right - all of it.

Collins doesn't proudly proclaim to be religious (which would be fine) but actually pushes a religious agenda while in office (which isn't fine).

Posted by: 386sx | August 4, 2009 8:30 AM

Thanks Kristjan Wager that's okay Gorogh doesn't know I like boozing it up in the mornings!!

Posted by: Charles | August 4, 2009 8:33 AM

Several years ago, I found a conversation with one of my grad-school colleagues very insightful. Bang-your-head-against-the-wall frustrating, but insightful. He was a few weeks or months away from his PhD in metallurgical engineering, yet he was a YECcer. I think it was right before the 2000 presidential election, maybe one of the primaries (his favorite was Alan Keyes. Go figure.)

He was unable to grasp the concept of political centrism. There was his view and the "liberal" view, and he simply could not wrap his head around the concept of a graded spectrum of political view.

Perhaps it is common that the extremists, including fundamentalists (and I daresay even PZ on occasion), just don't have the wiring to accept grey-area perspectives.

Posted by: Aquaria | August 4, 2009 8:34 AM

Actually, what hed-jerk actually did was posit an opinion of someone on delusions about a group, rather than on evidence of an individual's behavior.

Oh, so typical.

Posted by: Greg | August 4, 2009 8:35 AM

Heddle @24, Skin pigmentation is real, not a figment of a black persons imagination

Posted by: Kismet | August 4, 2009 8:38 AM

No, actually PZ would be a much better head of the NIH than Collins. Not that I disagree that a somewhat less controversial figure would be even better for such a postion! But atheism and science are inherently compatible, while much of religion and science is not. It's much more likely that religion would negatively influence a scientist than atheism...

Furthermore, I think it's fair to criticise him even before he has screwed up, because in this Christian based society it will be too late to change anything once he's in office, even if he screws up because of his religion. Or am I off?

Posted by: Aquaria | August 4, 2009 8:43 AM

Church of Paul?

Funny, I thought that was in Rome...

Posted by: Camels With Hammers | August 4, 2009 8:45 AM

#26, Thomas Aquinas is the one whose every article begins with three contrary positions to his own, then a contrary view, and then finally his own view, followed by refutations of the initial objections.

From what I understand his writings in this way follow the approach of the scholastic classrooms which were debate oriented like that. There is some speculation, if I remember correctly, that some of his writing may have been based on these actual debates or summations of them. (Though it is clear from his systematic and extensive thought that he was no mere stenographer of other people's debates but working out his own perspective throughout them).

Posted by: Medievalist Jon | August 4, 2009 8:52 AM

@16
"Probably the only person in history who ever gave his opponents a fair shake was Thomas Aquinas."

Unless the opponent was a Jew, of course, in which case it was OK to presume the opponent's iniquity and to have the opponent compelled to wear a distinguishing sign as clothing.

On the Collins appointment, I think his record indicates a man who is comfortable diluting his scientific and professional obligations with a religious agenda. So, while I am not a scientist and have no direct stake in the matter, I would think that that there were several candidates other than Collins who should have been pegged for the job.

Posted by: debaser71 | August 4, 2009 8:54 AM

" We spell it out clearly, over and over again, and these people seem incapable of comprehending a basic fact."

Which is partly why simple polite conversation alone will fail. We can choose our words carefully. Go through great pains to be clear. Take the time to make realistic arguments. Temper our words with qualifiers, etc etc etc. Then they just freakin' lie about us anyway.

/rant off

Posted by: Carlie | August 4, 2009 8:56 AM

I'd just like to say that the term "anti-atheist" is full of win. I'm now going to be substituting that any time I would have used the word theist.

Posted by: 386sx | August 4, 2009 9:00 AM

So whether it was Aquinas or Augustine, what did he do that deserves the epithet "greatest saint the world has ever known"?

Actually I don't like either one of them. They were both deluded fundie crackpots as far as I'm concerned.

"As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power of the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active power." -- Thomas Aquinas

Augustine was a particularly gullible fundie who got conned by "Saint" Ambrose's fake miracles and healings, as I recall.

Posted by: debaser71 | August 4, 2009 9:05 AM

Regarding the AMNH.

Yes, I was there too and I saw that lame video. I posted about it here too. SOmeone should get a copy so everyone caan see it.

It should be noted that the video was in the back and most people weren't watching it...although you can still hear it. And it plays over and over...it's like an automatic loop, not something youj need to press to make it play. Anyway that part of the museum was pretty crowded and I was listening to the conversations going on...and I was happy to hear parents expalining evolution and such...RL calls.

Posted by: Mandrake | August 4, 2009 9:09 AM

"The story goes that St. Thomas Aquinas was on his deathbed and wanted some herring, but there was no herring..." So he asked his wife, "Sylvia, here I am lying on my deathbed, and you won't let me have my dying wish--a good piece of herring, with maybe a little cream sauce. Why do you deprive me?" Sylvia replied, "Because we're saving the herring for the shiva!"

Sorry, but the first line of the Aquinas story sounded like the set-up for that joke.

Posted by: Me | August 4, 2009 9:13 AM

Gads, Paul, you're getting all irrational ...

"I have not been nominated for the head of the NIH." No one said you were. What would you say this?

"I am not qualified or even competent to do the job -- and anyone who tried to nominate me would have to be certifiably insane." Who said you were competent to do the job? Have you claimed that Collins isn't up to the task?

"I would also add that even if I had the skill set to hold that kind of administrative position, I would be the first to agree that my opinions on religion would make me a divisive figure unsuited to the diplomatic and political aspects of the job." What about the diplomatic and political aspects of YOUR job Paul? Does your strident atheism make you unsuited for your job? That's the question.

"That does not mean I'm disqualified from expressing my opinions about who is a good appointee, however." Who said you were disqualified from expressing your opinion?

"Nobody posting here is qualified to do the job; even the people appointing and approving the position, including Obama, are qualified." Why are you flailing about wildly?

"If you're going to take the view that only those suited for the position are allowed to voice their opinion ..." Who on God's green earth said such a thing?

"... then you're all going to have to shut up, and the position will never be filled." Cut back on the coffee Paul, it's making you irritale.

Posted by: 386sx | August 4, 2009 9:17 AM

Gorogh that's okay you're right I was goofing off. I really don't have achievements for the community except for maybe goofing off a lot and being weird. :P

Posted by: Gorogh | August 4, 2009 9:19 AM

I like to add, though, that "past achievements" have no argumentative value, if the case was to be argued, which was my original (albeit stalled) intent.

a) Is it true that (deliberate?) misrepresentation is a core feature of arguments throughout history?
b) What qualifies any "saint" as "greatest saint of all times", and what is that supposed to mean anyway?

Posted by: Gorogh | August 4, 2009 9:22 AM

@386sx #60, thanks for accepting the apology. I do not mean to be disrespectful to like-minded regulars, the manners here are pretty rough already *cough*

Enough of that, now.

Posted by: Sastra | August 4, 2009 9:24 AM

There's a rather significant difference between a theist who argues that science indicates that God exists, and an atheist who argues that science indicates that there is no God.

The first is going to look at the data and try to derive a positive finding from it. Collins isn't just saying that the wonder of the universe inspires him to love God even more. He actually makes scientific arguments involving Fine Tuning and human morality. The best explanation for the cosmological and biological facts in issue - is the existence of a supernatural entity or force. He's using the evidence to argue in favor of adding a new element to the scientific model of reality.

The atheist, on the other hand, is not trying to add a new element to the model: he's using Occam's razor to eliminate an unnecessary hypothesis. Fine Tuning and human morality, like Design, can be explained within the current naturalist model. You don't need to posit a new force or Being with an intentional stance. If one applies the scientific method to the existence of God, as if it were a hypothesis, then it is eliminated for the same reason one eliminates the ether and mind-body substance dualism. They aren't needed to explain observations.

A religious scientist who insists that God is not involved in science in any way, because it's not a scientific kind of claim, may be making a category error and fooling himself, but at least he's going to keep his religion out of science. Collins isn't doing that. When we complain that he is evangelizing, we don't mean that he's going around asking people to accept Jesus. We mean that he is regularly trying to persuade people to believe in God because, as a scientist, he believes that the current naturalistic model is not sufficient to explain what the scientists have discovered. He's introducing Fine Tuning and Moral Argument as science theories which lead to God or some "higher intelligence" as a conclusion.

Invoking Occam's razor to eliminate God as unnecessary is not as controversial from the science standpoint.

The theist always has the out of placing God away from the scientific model of reality, and treating it like a feeling or preference. However, if Collins is correct, then even atheist scientists should be persuaded by the evidence to accept that God exists, as a matter of reason.

Posted by: toth | August 4, 2009 9:31 AM

Me@58: "What about the diplomatic and political aspects of YOUR job Paul? Does your strident atheism make you unsuited for your job? That's the question."

And the answer is "no". Next question?

Posted by: Sigmund | August 4, 2009 9:33 AM

Off topic but somewhat amusing.
Good news for Heddle - religious workers come out as more trustworthy than scientists in a poll of one Godless people's opinions......
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8183502.stm

Posted by: speedweasel | August 4, 2009 9:37 AM

@carlie (#50)

"I'd just like to say that the term "anti-atheist" is full of win. I'm now going to be substituting that any time I would have used the word theist."

How about 'Secular Denialist'?

Posted by: tsg | August 4, 2009 9:46 AM

Gads, Paul, you're getting all irrational ...

"I have not been nominated for the head of the NIH." No one said you were. What would you say this?

Because it's precisely the point of the objection (and the reason for this post, by the way). Collins is being nominated for head of the NIH, a position for which PZ believes he is unsuited. Unless you are arguing in terms of that single fact, you (unsurprisingly) are not addressing the actual objections.

But then, you haven't actually made any arguments of any kind. "I'm not saying, I'm just saying."

Posted by: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood | August 4, 2009 9:52 AM

I'm surprised at your surprise. If there's anything we have learned about the anti-Atheists--even those supposedly on 'our side'--is that they lie and they lie and they lie. They cannot help but dissemble.

Posted by: tsg | August 4, 2009 9:58 AM

Paul apparently thinks he is unsuited only because he is VOCAL about his beliefs. That's the part people like Me are questioning.

If that's what you think his only objection is, then you don't understand it.

Posted by: A B Carter | August 4, 2009 10:03 AM

The Brown paints his accusation in broad strokes and no doubt done with rhetorical intent; however, I’m guessing he believes there is not a significant difference between his accusation and the actual concerns raised about the Collins nomination.

To say that Christian belief is allowed just so long as it is not publicly expressed is still to discriminate against Christians, just as the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy discriminates against gays in the military. Granted, Professor Collins does more than merely express his Christianity: he is vocal and has used his prominence as a scientist to help disseminate his beliefs. But in these sorts of discussions if you’re in for a penny then you’re in for a pound; if you say you are not going to discriminate a person for his beliefs, then you must allow him free expression of those beliefs, no matter how vehement that expression.

This distinction between belief and expression was not the entirety of Myers clarification, but it did strike me as a dominant part of it, and as such unpersuasive.

Posted by: Joe | August 4, 2009 10:10 AM

This is about trust, not malice. No argument on either side is going to convince the other, because it will be taken the wrong way - that would require some sort of personal rapprochement and trust building that I don't think likely to happen.

They don't trust New Atheists, and so they assume that the "he injects religion into science" bit is overblown and cover for your real reason, which is that you don't want anyone who takes religion seriously in power. What you see as Collins putting his faith into science, they see as Collins pulling his faith out of areas he thinks science will touch in the near future.

Likewise, if Francis Collins professed that he would not let his faith interfere in any scientific decisions- you probably wouldn't believe him.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 4, 2009 10:13 AM

To say that Christian belief is allowed just so long as it is not publicly expressed is still to discriminate against Christians, just as the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy discriminates against gays in the military.

Why not try actually reading what PZ, Coyne and others have said rather than making up your own version ?

Granted, Professor Collins does more than merely express his Christianity: he is vocal and has used his prominence as a scientist to help disseminate his beliefs.

Yes, he makes it clear that he rejects certain scientific explanations, such as the origin of morality by evolution, in favour of religious dogma. There are good theories explaining how morality could have evolved and it does Collins no credit that he dismisses them, seemingly without even understanding them.

Further, no one is saying Collins cannot hold such views. However no one has said that holding such views should not have consequences. In this case the consequence is that a significant part of part of the scientific community think holding such views are incompatible with being head of NIH.

Posted by: xebecs | August 4, 2009 10:17 AM

There's an offense that is not on the "bannable" list, but should be: repeatly refusing to call PZ by his chosen handle.

Paul this, Paul that. It's like the bozos who insist on calling Obama "Hussein". They do it to push buttons and rile people up. If that's not a troll, I don't know what is.

Banhammer time, please. I'm getting tired of these losers -- they push out the real discussion.

Okay, I'm done telling PZ how to run his site. (I'm really not -- I'm just expressing a preference.)

Posted by: MrFire | August 4, 2009 10:18 AM

@80

then you must allow him free expression of those beliefs, no matter how vehement that expression.

Except when that expression belies your intent to put your personal agenda ahead of your job responsibilities. If a situation arises where Collins' beliefs and the hard data are in conflict, it is not clear which option he will take. As Nerd of Redhead pointed out, he could allay those concerns quite easily.

Posted by: AdamK | August 4, 2009 10:22 AM

Christians always lie.

They ALWAYS lie.

They are incapable of having a discussion without uttering falsehoods.

"Lying" is not on the list of things Christians avoid doing.

If it is true that X is a Christian it is logically true that X is a liar.

Posted by: truthspeaker | August 4, 2009 10:28 AM

Notice that pharyngula is not hosted on a University of Minnesota server and does not have the UofM logo anywhere on it.

That's the difference between Collins and PZ.

Posted by: Aaron Baker | August 4, 2009 10:32 AM

I'd go on to add that, although the appointment of Collins might be a good thing, to the extent that it wins some Evangelicals to the cause of science, his deliberate injection of his religion into scientifice discussions is pretty irksome.

And as for the hypothetical counter-example of a fire-breathing atheist science czar bringing his disbelief into every discussion, well: 1) he'd be badly disregarding the political and diplomatic part of the job (but then, why isn't Collins guilty of the same offense?); but 2) philosophical and methodological naturalism really don't conflict. Religion and science, I think, need not conflict, but only if you make religion so refutation-evasive that it should be obvious you're faced with an intellectual shell-game.

Posted by: Agoraphobic Kleptomaniac | August 4, 2009 10:42 AM

Paul apparently thinks he is unsuited only because he is VOCAL about his beliefs. That's the part people like Me are questioning.

No. wrong wrong wrong. It's because his BELIEFS directly interfere with the job he is meant to promote and advocate.

It's kinda like a catholic minister getting a job as an abortion doctor.

Or a Scientologist getting a job as a Pharmacist.

An Amish taking a job at Intel.

Vegan working at a slaughterhouse.

Muslim bartender.

Their beliefs aren't the problem, it's the fact that they Cannot perform the job they have taken DUE to their beliefs that is the problem.

Collins has Repeatedly distorted science evidence to match his idea of what GOD is and to agree with his beliefs. Anyone who does this is not fit to be a leader of SCIENCE.

Posted by: tsg | August 4, 2009 10:45 AM

@Me #95

Do you have any evidence that his religion crept into his PROFESSIONAL decisions?

Start here. Read all of it, not just the parts about him being Christian.

You might also consider that an atheist's beliefs could affect her/his decisions in this kind of position.

Red Herring.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 4, 2009 10:48 AM

So, any thoughts? I am a layman in biology and philosophy but feel free to tell me I am making a fool of myself if I am. Its the only way I will learn.

Only in that you will NEVER get Silver Fox to actually answer you with anything other than his own masturbatory fantasies about how things work. He's a moron. You're better off smashing your hand with a rock than trying to get anything honest or of value from him.

Posted by: E.V. | August 4, 2009 10:48 AM

Okay, Me (capitol M versus the former friend of Pharyngula who signed on as lowercase me) has to be one of our past banned trolls with a new moniker. So which ass with a sneeringly superior tone always loves to refer to PZ as Paul?

Jeebus, these banned goobers just can't stop their man-love obsession with PZ. I don't know if PZ should be flattered or ooged out (false dichotomy?).

Posted by: Blondin | August 4, 2009 10:50 AM

There seems to be a false dichotomy in some of these arguments.

The opposite of a person who appears to let magical-thinking influence his decisions would be a person who appears to make reality-based decisions. The argument is that a non-religion influenced person is preferable to a religion-influenced person to head the NIH. In other words: No, I wouldn't have a problem with putting a vocal atheist in charge of the NIH (provided all other relevant criteria were met).

A complementary situation would be to put PZ in charge of Sunday School curriculum for the Catholic church.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 4, 2009 10:59 AM

Me@58: "What about the diplomatic and political aspects of YOUR job Paul? Does your strident atheism make you unsuited for your job? That's the question."

Toth: And the answer is "no".

Even if it was "yes", that would have no relevance whatever to whether Collins is suited to the job to which he has been appointed. Tu quoque is a logical fallacy.

Posted by: JiminKy | August 4, 2009 11:05 AM

You know, I don't think Collins' champions are being deliberately dishonest, or even incorrect (by their standards of reality) when they say we're opposing his nomination "just because he's a Christian." To them, you're not really a Christian unless you're trying to cram Jesus into everything you do, including professional and public activities. You're not really a Christian unless you just can't shut up about your beliefs long enough to do your job. To an awful lot of these people, that's what "being a Christian" means – so they're honestly and truthfully saying we oppose Collins for "being a Christian," because they can't conceive of any other way for a Christian to be.

I certainly can, and so can most Christians; but the old no-true-Scotsman fallacy is endemic and chronic among these guys.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 4, 2009 11:11 AM

Rev BigDumbChimp @ 100 and Celtic_Evolution @ 101;

Thanks for the clarification. I don't suppose I will get a reply then. Oh well never mind, I'll know better next time.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 4, 2009 11:13 AM

Me the fucktard idiot

You might also consider that an atheist's beliefs could affect her/his decisions in this kind of position.

Lets compare Ken Miller, a devout Catholic, with Collins. He has spoken publically on his religious beliefs. Miller has made it plain over the years that his religion and science are separate. His nomination for NIH director would not create any controversy, as there is no history of problems.

On the other hand, Collins has shown, as exemplified by the posts on this thread, that he hasn't kept religion and science totally separate. So there is real concern that his religion can overlap into decision making, like not funding a promising lead for better birth control due to looking at his religion rather than the science. That is the worry. Now you show us Collins won't cause a problem. The burden of evidence is upon you. You can always just stop posting.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 4, 2009 11:22 AM

I have seen Paul many times on this very blog brag about how the way he teaches promotes atheism.

Ahh... good point, Sven at # 111. Here's yet another big difference between atheists and lying christians. While lying christians will make claims they can't support (as quoted above), atheists tend to back up claims with provided evidence.

Please scroll down to the part where PZ states the following:

"I do not peddle atheism in the classroom, and am actually very careful, since I am a vocal atheist in the blogosphere, to reassure my students that apostasy is not required to get an "A" in my classes, and that they are free to hold whatever religious beliefs they want — the biology classroom is about evidence, not belief, and explanations supported by logic, not revelation."

That's just one example of many where PZ states the same position.

So... will you now admit to being an egregious liar? Or will you be providing us those examples to the contrary that we've asked for? We're waiting...

Posted by: tsg | August 4, 2009 11:26 AM

With that as a background criticisms need to be specific and detailed.

Start here. Read the whole thing, not just the parts about him being Christian.

Posted by: Denis Loubet | August 4, 2009 11:29 AM

The question for me boils down to this: Are the deeply religious insane?

The only difference I can see between believing in an invisible man in the sky, and believing you're Napoleon, is that one of those insane delusions is culturally re-enforced.

What if instead of being an evangelical, Collins believed he was Napoleon? Would we say he's director material just because he can compartmentalize his insane Napoleonic proclivities? What about the fact that he would be delusional?

This is an incredibly ugly issue. Are the religious insane? It's the one question I have to answer reluctantly with a yes. Reluctantly because it can't help but make atheists look bad, but dammit, I can't rationalize a different answer.

Maybe someone else can.

Posted by: Sigmund | August 4, 2009 11:32 AM

I have no problem with Collins being the head of NIH. I don't think he will allow his religion to interfere with the science of the job. I base my judgment on this issue on knowing about his previous experience as the head of the Human Genome project which, apart from some Godly sillyness at the press conference (which came across as more embarrassing rather than destroying science as we know it - at least he didn't bring out the guitar!), he carried out in a religion neutral manner.
That said I do reserve the right to criticize his past religious/scientific illogicalities.
From a scientific point of view I think its important to understand the real point of criticism of his public statements.
Most of what he says is unfalsifiable apologetics common to almost all mordern christianity (fine tuning, predetermined plan by God etc). The problem really comes with his view that human consciousness/morality is too complicated to be explained by evolutionary forces and thus necessitated an intervention by God in relatively recent evolutionary history. This, in essence is Intelligent Design. Can you really criticize Behe saying pretty much the exact same thing about blood clotting or bacterial flagella while using the same argument yourself, just directing it at another biological question?
The fact that his religious utterances undermine his pro-evolutionary statements IS a problem.
That said, so long as he keeps to the science and stops promoting one religion (surely a church state violation anyway, isn't it?) then for all practical purposes Collins should do fine in the job.
And can someone please take that bloody guitar from him?

Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 4, 2009 11:36 AM

Am I paraphrasing for emphasis? Yes, but how is this “making things up”? There may be some real concerns about Collins’s nomination. His blurring of science and religion is hardly the way I would reconcile the two. But he’s a legitimate scientist and a superb administrator. While he proselytizes, there have been no complaints from his colleagues and no evidence that I know of that he has made bad choices as either a scientist or an administrator. With that as a background criticisms need to be specific and detailed. PZ doesn’t himself no service by the way he expresses himself and yes comes across as objecting to Collins just for being a Christian.

It is making stuff up because you did not bother to look at the evidence.

As for not seeing criticism of Collins' science from other scientists ? Well it is there, and you claiming there is none is you making stuff up.

Just to remind you, Collins is on record as rejecting scientific theories for the evolutionary origins of morality. He does not reject the theories on scientific grounds, but because they conflict with his religious dogma. A good number of scientists have criticised him for that. This has been well documented, both here and elsewhere, and so you have no excuse for not being aware of it.

But please, go ahead and explain how rejecting good scientific theories in favour of dogma is not an example of bad science.

Posted by: Sastra | August 4, 2009 11:39 AM

Perhaps the distinctions would be clearer if, instead of talking about atheism and theism, we used metaphysical naturalism and metaphysical supernaturalism.

A scientific spokesperson who let his naturalism "intrude" into science would be doing so by arguing that the current success of methodological naturalism implies that metaphysical naturalism is the more likely theory. A scientific mindset will conclude that there is no supernatural realm or entity.

A scientific spokesperson who let his supernaturalism "intrude" into science would be doing so by arguing that the current incompleteness of what has been learned through methodological naturalism implies that metaphysical supernaturalism is the more likely theory. A scientific mindset will conclude that there is a supernatural realm or entity.

That second situation is very dicey, from a scientific standpoint. The first situation is very dicey, from a political one. If Collins is an example of the second position, it would not be surprising if other scientists think that his 'theory' is fair game. It will be "no, you're wrong; and science doesn't actually work that way, by sticking speculations in gaps."

A scientific spokesperson in the first situation will be on firm ground scientifically, but it will be "shhh ... you're right of course; but you shouldn't actually say that. That's not how funding works, by carrying ideas to their reasonable conclusions."

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 4, 2009 11:46 AM

AB Carter # 115

There may be some real concerns about Collins’s nomination.

Correct... which is... ummm... the reason for the objection.

His blurring of science and religion is hardly the way I would reconcile the two.

Yup... that's the concern.

But he’s a legitimate scientist and a superb administrator.

Both points which PZ has many times stated himself. So... back the the concern you listed above...

While he proselytizes, there have been no complaints from his colleagues and no evidence that I know of that he has made bad choices as either a scientist or an administrator.

Did you even read any of the original article from PZ? Or are you just howling at the follow ups and complaints from the "persecuted christians"? He has not, as of yet, done anything harmful through his conflict between religion and science. But the head of the NIH is a different beast altogether with a far more reaching affect on the public at large and on health policies. This makes his inconsistencies with regards to compatibility of his religion and his science all the more troubling. He has stated positions that incline one to believe that a conflict might indeed arise, and policy decisions be made for the wrong (read: religious) reasons. Collins may, in fact, never bring that problem to bear and may indeed keep his religion out of his policy and decision making process, but it does not make the concern now any less valid nor the need to express that concern any less important.

With that as a background criticisms need to be specific and detailed.

They have been, in excruciating detail, and by many other noted scientists besides PZ... this has already been pointed out to you and linked so that you may confirm it... why not go ahead and do that...

PZ doesn’t himself no service by the way he expresses himself and yes comes across as objecting to Collins just for being a Christian.

Yes... by those too ignorant or lazy to read all that has been written and who have selective hearing / reading skills. Sitting there with you hands over your ears saying "nope, it's because he's a christian" despite being presented argument after argument to the contrary is not the way to convince anyone.

Posted by: Alyson Miers | August 4, 2009 11:47 AM

@121:

Can anybody actually find a bonified decision that Collins has made in his professional capacity that was affected by his beliefs?

If you stop ignoring all the posts that answer your questions, you might find documentation of Dr. Collins's bona fide decisions favoring theist doctrine over scientific inquiry. Or you can just keep doing what you're doing, and assume calling Prof. Myers "Paul" will make you look like a formidable presence.

Posted by: Sastra | August 4, 2009 11:51 AM

Collins as working scientist may not be allowing his religious views to influence how he does science, but Collins as science spokesperson does seem to be allowing his religious views to influence how he presents science to the public.

He's not just saying that he doesn't see a conflict between religion and science because he personally compartmentalizes the two areas, and others can do the same. He seems to be making a case that there's no conflict because science and religion support each other: religion fills in the gaps in our scientific understanding of the world. Atheism is a scientific dead-end.

Uh oh.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 4, 2009 11:55 AM

Bob O'H:

Collins did insert a reference to the Christian God when announcing the sequencing of the human genome. Sorry, but if that's the worse you can dig up about him, then you must have an incredibly thin skin.

Right... Collins injecting untestable, magical properties to something as scientifically relevant as the human genome being a problem is simply a matter of atheists having "thin skin".

Excellent attempt at dismissing the evidence as unimportant.

Do better.

Posted by: Chris Bell | August 4, 2009 12:06 PM

Careful PZ! You run a "high-profile website" that "promotes" atheism! I don't think that should disqualify you from the post.

People should be free to be evangelical or atheists in their free time. They should also be free to argue that science supports/undermine their religious beliefs.

The only really unacceptable thing you listed was using NHGRI as a vehicle to spread those beleifs. That's crossing the line.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 4, 2009 12:09 PM

Robert -

OK... instead of assuming that the rest of us are aware of your "inside joke" affiliation with PZ, surely you could recognize the habit of troll-like posters to go out of their way to incorrectly refer to PZ by calling him Paul, or incorrectly spelling his last name... it's been used time and time again as an attempt to intentionally irritate, especially when posting a contrary viewpoint.

Take "Me", for example, who immediately followed your post by referring to PZ as "Paul", just as you did, holding a similar point of view. It's an argument tactic. An immature one.

That you were not using it as such would be clearly unknown to the rest of us, so give us a break.

How would you address "Me"'s use of "Paul" in this discussion?

Posted by: Abdul Alhazred | August 4, 2009 12:11 PM

Hard to understand?

When dealing with certain religious tpyes, try to put yourself in their shoes.

If you thought understanding something meant you were going to be tortured forever, what would you do?

Posted by: Me | August 4, 2009 12:14 PM

tsg,

I read. It's not there.

Example of a PROFESSIONAL decision please?

Gotta go debonify my lunch before I eat it.

Posted by: tsg | August 4, 2009 12:16 PM

When dealing with certain religious tpyes, try to put yourself in their shoes.

A good number of posters here started in their shoes. They just had the good sense to take them off.

If you thought understanding something meant you were going to be tortured forever, what would you do?

Religion is a heavy suitcase. All you have to do is put it down.

Posted by: DingoJack | August 4, 2009 12:19 PM

Me - Nice to see you "debonify" your female companions before eating them*! :)
Please see posts I mentioned above (#123). - DJ
*Presumably with Fava Beans and a white wine 'Chanti'.

Posted by: xebecs | August 4, 2009 12:20 PM

Re: me at @141

Sorry, that was over the top. It's been a bad morning and I've had way too much caffeine. I came here for a diversion and ran into one of my pet peeves.

Sorry I overreacted.

Posted by: Art | August 4, 2009 12:21 PM

Me @#3 - "Hmmm ... so would it be wrong, say, to call for a professor at a public institution to step down, not because he is an atheist, but because he is a VOCAL atheist?"

Absolutely. If this hypothetical, ideologically incompatible and overly vocal atheists was in charge of funding for a major part of Christian churches if would be entirely consistent to fire him.

The persons private beliefs and behaviors have nothing to do with it. It is the overt public acts and ideological incompatibility with the organization they are in charge of that causes the problem. If PZ was put in charge of the Southern Baptist Leadership or made Pope, perhaps just an archbishop, you would have a comparable situation.

Posted by: Chris Bell | August 4, 2009 12:28 PM

Thanks for the clarification Celtic, but I have read the previous posts. (I have not read all the comments - don't have the time.)

Let me put it this way, I agree with your comment #114. PZ carefully separates his work life from his atheism. My understanding of the problem with Collins is that he fails to do that. He gives press conferences talking about God, etc.

Now if the head of NHGRI wants to run an evangelical website on his own time, fine. That's his right. I think it's stupid and logically inconsistent, but as long as he keeps it at home (as PZ does) then it's hard to complain.

Here are the three "faults" that PZ listed:

He is openly and avidly evangelical, brags about adding religious messages to NHGRI announcements, and recently built a high-profile website that promotes evangelical Christianity.

As a lawyer, I'm saying this. If PZ fired Collins for #2, then PZ would have nothing to worry about. If PZ fired Collings for #1 and #3 (as stated in this post), then Collins could sue PZ for religious discrimination and would have a good case.

Posted by: Chris Bell | August 4, 2009 12:38 PM

tsg # 151.

As I mentioned, I'm sure you could easily add context. For example:

- PZ has been much clearer in other posts.
- Collins uses his website to make religious statements "as director of the human genome project" etc.

All I'm saying is that THIS CURRENT post by PZ slams Collins for doing thing that should be allowed. THIS CURRENT post seems to do exactly what PZ says he is not doing--judging Collins by his religion.

"I don't mind a Christian in charge of the NIH, but I do object to a missionary"

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 4, 2009 12:39 PM

Chris Bell @ #150

That's a far more descriptive and worthwhile comment than your first, so thank you for the clarification. And apologies if I went overboard criticizing your first post... seemed like a common theme today.

As for you point,

Criticism #2 is a great criticism. Collins is being completely inappropriate. Criticisms #1 and #3 are not appropriate (without more context, anyway).

Well, PZ has provided more context in prior posts. And context is important. For example, you are taking this situation out of context by equating it to PZ firing or hiring anyone. PZ has not done so, nor has he called for anyone to fire or block Collins from being appointed. What he is actually doing is broadcasting a concern that Collins may have inherent conflicts between his religion and his science that could impede his duties as head of the NIH. Given that context, all three points are perfectly relevant and important.

Posted by: Chris Bell | August 4, 2009 12:47 PM

Celtic,

Thanks for the response. It sounds like we are basically agreed. Collins has, in the past, used his government position to promote his religious beliefs. This was completely inappropriate, and we have every reason to think he might do it again.

If he was able to keep his evangelical Christian beliefs to himself, we would have no cause to criticise. (Here, we beleive that there is a deep inconsistency between religion and science - but many people do both and we're not going to start firing religious scientists as long as they don't let it affect their work.)

I just think that PZ did not word this post as well as he worded his previous posts on the subject. The Coyne article PZ links to, however, is very clear.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 4, 2009 12:53 PM

Chris Bell

I just think that PZ did not word this post as well as he worded his previous posts on the subject. The Coyne article PZ links to, however, is very clear.

Perhaps... but given how many times his words on this subject have been misrepresented, one can understand the frustration that might lead to a fairly terse reply.

Posted by: tsg | August 4, 2009 1:12 PM

@Chris Bell #159

It's clear from the first paragraph this isn't the first time he's commented on it. Anyone with an interest in the discussion can easily find out what he's said in the past. Anyone who isn't won't listen to it anyway.

The entire point of THIS CURRENT post is that the opposition has no desire to understand the criticisms against Collins as head of the NIH. Basing PZ's position on THIS CURRENT post alone is doing the same thing, especially when the arguments have been clarified in the comments that you couldn't be bothered to read, but felt it necessary to comment anyway. In other words, doing precisely what PZ is complaining about in THIS CURRENT post.

Posted by: Chris Bell | August 4, 2009 1:25 PM

Yeah, PZ does a great job of being clear here. Especially when he says things like:

"I don't mind a Christian in charge of the NIH, but I do object to a missionary"

I know what PZ thinks because I follow this site, but he said some stupid things in this post that undercut what he has said several times before.

I just thought he might want to clarify/update to make his point clear and not undermine his message.

Posted by: Chris Bell | August 4, 2009 1:33 PM

Since my position is:

"This post stupidly undermines much of what PZ has said elsewhere"

I think focusing just on this post justifies my position quite nicely, thank you.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 4, 2009 1:36 PM

I don't agree. PZ said something in this post that is wrong. If I came to this site for the first time and read this post, I would think that PZ does exactly what he says he doesn't do--discriminate on the basis of religion.

So your ignorance is somehow PZ's fault ? if you cannot be bothered to read older posts to put the current one in context that is your fault. PZ is not to blame for you being lazy.

Posted by: Chris Bell | August 4, 2009 1:46 PM

I'm not "back-pedalling," this has been my point all along. PZ's position is clear to me, a long-time reader. However, in this post he said things that clearly undercut what he's said elsewhere.

(It's not the same) but I feel like a friend of mine who I know is a good person just made a racist remark. I know he didn't mean it to come out that way, and I know from his history that he has stridently anti-racist views. But there's that remark, just hanging out there....

You can't say (1) I don't discriminate based on religion, and (2) "I don't mind a Christian in charge of the NIH, but I do object to a missionary" at the same time. I know that PZ means #1. He should stick to it.

Posted by: tsg | August 4, 2009 1:56 PM

I'm not "back-pedalling," this has been my point all along. PZ's position is clear to me, a long-time reader. However, in this post he said things that clearly undercut what he's said elsewhere.

It's only undercut if you ignore what he said elsewhere. Basing your opinion of PZ's position solely on this post doesn't make it less wrong. What he's said elsewhere has been pointed out to you and others. So what's your point? If you ignore the context you can misunderstand the argument? Duh.

Posted by: dinkum | August 4, 2009 2:04 PM

You can't say (1) I don't discriminate based on religion, and (2) "I don't mind a Christian in charge of the NIH, but I do object to a missionary" at the same time.

I don't mind a Christian in charge of the NIH, but I do object to a missionary, especially one who has said some awfully stupid things about science, being put in control of such a large chunk of our country's science budget.

Posted by: Ryan F Stello | August 4, 2009 2:11 PM

Chris Bell (#162) raised a magnifying lens,

Yeah, PZ does a great job of being clear here. Especially when he says things like:

"I don't mind a Christian in charge of the NIH, but I do object to a missionary"

I know what PZ thinks because I follow this site, but he said some stupid things in this post that undercut what he has said several times before.

Thing is, I don't find that quote at all confusing or undercutting to the argument: it is the argument in a sentence.
i.e. Being a Christian isn't an issue so much as the (obviously open to question) possibility of using the NIH like he used NHGRI (which addresses your other charge).

Actually, it seems like every point that you've raised as stupid and questionable turn out to be because of your reading of it.

Are you really having a hard time with the statements or are you being deliberately obtuse?

Posted by: tsg | August 4, 2009 2:18 PM

tsg, let's turn this around. Which do you believe?

(1) PZ is being consistent and hasn't said anything that is wrong

(2) PZ has said some inconsistent things in this post, but it's OK because he has been clear in previous posts

(3) Anyone can misread the post and misrepresent the argument if they ignore the facts.

Posted by: Chris Bell. | August 4, 2009 2:22 PM

Ryan, please read my earlier comments, where I went through the three criticisms PZ makes, only one of which is valid without further context.

I genuinely was surprised when I read this post. I thought "Woah, PZ! You're doing exactly what you said you aren't doing!"

-----

Stephen, wow, great comment. There's no responsibility to be consistent, so it doesn't matter if you're inconsistent! Judging from your comment, there's no responsibility to try and be smart either.

Posted by: Agoraphobic Kleptomanaic | August 4, 2009 2:35 PM

Chris Bell: You seem confused.

This is easy.

Are you listening?

The problem is when Collins' belief interferes with his ability to do science.

That's it.

You're selectively quoting PZ to say that just because Collins is a "missionary", that he is unqualified.

Not true.

It's that his "missionary" stances are Distorting and influencing his science.

Please stop repeating yourself.

Posted by: Jonathon | August 4, 2009 2:38 PM

One must never forget the persecution syndrome that many Christians carry around like a chip on their shoulder. To hear them talk, they are just a few days away from being thrown to the lions as they were in Rome.

I wonder if these same Christians who rush to defend Collins would feel the same way if he were a Muslim or a Hindu, using his position of authority to promote those religions.

Somehow, I think they'd be calling for his head.

Posted by: Stephen | August 4, 2009 2:47 PM

Chris Bell: "... please read my earlier comments, where I went through the three criticisms PZ makes, only one of which is valid without further context."

And we all know that Chris Bell has the only valid understanding of this entire issue. After all, if Chris Bell says that PZ made three criticisms, and these are those (1, 2, 3), and if Chris Bell further states that only one of them is valid ... well ...

Listen, Chris: you do not have the only valid understanding of this issue, just one perspective among many. While yours is demonstrably better than some, it is also NOT demonstrably better than most. Try to understand this: your personal understanding of a situation.argument/etc is not automatically better than anyone else's *simply because it's yours.* You do not have some special source of extra-valuable insight. You'd do well to be more humble among those who are clearly your betters, in many respects (and no, I am not placing myself among those betters, but I know when to fish and when to cut bait).

Posted by: Ryan F Stello | August 4, 2009 3:07 PM

Ryan, please read my earlier comments

I have and found that most of your complaints to be lacking in logical analysis.

You appear to be quick to criticize comments based on some hypothetical new user (who is also too lazy to search for more information), but you, who is not new and presumably (big presumption I know) not lazy, still has the same problems.

Since you believe it is a major point, from your main three criticisms, you identify:

He is openly and avidly evangelical, brags about adding religious messages to NHGRI announcements, and recently built a high-profile website that promotes evangelical Christianity

You call these 'the three "faults" that PZ listed', to which I would say, IF these were the only things that PZ identified as issue, then yes, his point would be lost.

The damning thing, however, is that you single this out of a long post that has better statements.
If your argument is that PZ should gaurd himself better against quote miners, the point is well made.

But that's not where you leave things, is it?
Instead of pointing out a potentially confusing statement, you use it like any other quote miner to suggest something beyond the statement:

You can't say (1) I don't discriminate based on religion, and (2) "I don't mind a Christian in charge of the NIH, but I do object to a missionary" at the same time. I know that PZ means #1. He should stick to it.

There's nothing at all at odds between these two as I noted in my previous comment to you.

To make it clearer, it's not discriminatory of someone's religion if you raise concerns about how they may use their religion based on their past actions.

While you can certainly criticize me as being too favorable, I think this is the only reasonable way any viewer could understand that.

I certaintly don't think you have a strong enough case to argue otherwise.

Posted by: Lynna | August 4, 2009 3:42 PM

One of the commenters on the Guardian website notes that Andrew Brown has taken us from "militant atheists" to "Tribal Atheists."

Repeat of link to the article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/jul/31/religion-atheism-harris-collins-witchcraft

Comments are at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/jul/31/religion-atheism-harris-collins-witchcraft?commentpage=1

Posted by: Sastra | August 4, 2009 3:56 PM

"Tribal atheists?"

Aha! That makes us indigenous people now, and they can't attack or even criticize us without sounding like oppressive Western cultural imperialists!

They went too far, and are hoist on their own petard.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 4, 2009 4:39 PM

I've seen no evidence that Collins will actually use his position to proselytise, so I don't see that there's a problem.

then you really haven't looked very hard.

Posted by: articulett | August 4, 2009 5:25 PM

Theists and faitheists are such hypocrites. They'd understand exactly what was being said... in fact they'd be using the same arguments themselves if FC's waterfall experience led him to believe that Scientology was the truth and if he believed in Xenu, Thetans, and "reactive minds" rather than Triune gods, souls, and "free will". And yet, the latter is not more scientific than the former. Both are equally "crazy" from an empirical point of view. Both are equally in "compatible" with science.

And atheism is no more a "belief" than non-belief in Scientiology (non-believers in Scientology are called "wogs" or "suppressive people"). How can one indoctrinate against belief in Scientology other than by encouraging critical thought (which is more inoculation than indoctrination.) And how can atheism be any more a faith than that? But I guess theists feel like repetition of a lie can turn it into a truth. (After all, it's how they've made their gods seem real and faith seem like a means of knowledge). So they are endlessly likening atheism to faith so they can dismiss atheism under the same brush they sweep away conflicting faiths (like Scientology).

Theists must always lie to themselves about non-believer's motives in order to keep themselves ignorant in regards to exactly how much their own beliefs are like the beliefs they laugh at. They pretend we are saying something else to avoid the implications of what we are actually saying on their own carefully protected delusions.

Francis Collins waterfall sign is indistinguishable from a schizophrenic delusion. His triune gods are indistinguishable from ghosts and demons. Those who say so are just being honest. They are not criticizing Christianity any more than a Christian would criticize a Scientologist in the same position using the same reasoning.

Posted by: Smoggy Batrubble | August 4, 2009 5:37 PM

Floyd Rubber asked me to say that whoever is quoting him above, has the quote wrong. What he actually said was "So many Christians WITH NIPPLES and not enough crosses." He is very proud of his new Christian nipple-piercings and is thinking of opening a Christian piercing and body adornment franchise.

If you'd like to decorate yourself with Christlike body adornment, email piercedlikejesus@metalformissionaries.com

Posted by: Smoggy Batrubble | August 4, 2009 5:44 PM

Dear Brother Heddle,

Congratulations on your attempt to engage with the atheists using sarcasm. While it was a distinct fail, as you seem to confuse software with hardware, unfortunately mash in a tired cliche, and fail to perceive the essential point, which is the relationship of healthy skepticism any intelligently designed object should have about its creator. You do earn some Jesus points for a gesture towards rhetorical flair. Of course you also lose said Jesus points for making Christians seem like insecure smartasses.

Yours conveying divine disappointment

Smoggy

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 4, 2009 5:55 PM

Oh noes--advanced software will paint us in a corner and repudiate God? What will we do? - heddle

You'll carry on lying and fantasising of course.

Posted by: Robert Grumbine | August 4, 2009 6:42 PM

@141 xebecs: Actually, my typing was even worse than that, it was @61 I was referring to. Don't know how it got that bollixed up. Anyhow, glad the caffeine drained a little, and accepted by all means.

I do know about the YEC crowd using 'Paul Zachary Myers' instead of Paul or PZ. Now there, no problem for me to see the issue. Paul/PZ, as far as I've ever seen over the years, has never gone by that. It'd be as unusual as referring to me with my middle name, which I've never used in conversation.

@25, @153, various others, and including PZ's original:
Your case would be vastly improved by actually linking to the horrible statements of Collins'. One of the normal features of PZ posting about someone doing something awful is that after describing the awfulness, he links to the full text original. And, as a rule, the full is even worse than the description. Here, instead, there's a simple assertion that Collins said something that should bar him from the job he's been nominated for. No quote, no link. The sourceless paragraph, again:

So what's different about Collins? He doesn't keep it to himself. He is openly and avidly evangelical, brags about adding religious messages to NHGRI announcements, and recently built a high-profile website that promotes evangelical Christianity. I don't mind a Christian in charge of the NIH, but I do object to a missionary, especially one who has said some awfully stupid things about science, being put in control of such a large chunk of our country's science budget.

'openly and avidly' is a requirement of evangelical. As is 'missionary'. If you don't want an evangelical to be in charge of a science program, that's an argument you can make. But those characteristics are native to evangelical. You cannot divorce them from the fact that he (and others) are religious in that way. Your objection in that case is one of religion.

I did some searching and found no reference to Collins bragging about adding religious messages to NHGRI announcements (not least to search prior articles on pharyngula). PZ provides no link, much less links to multiple tainted announcements. The closest I found was Larry Moran's disapproving of a quote from Collins book (not the announcement itself). But that was a single announcement, and given what is quoted there, is awfully pathetic grounds for denying a good scientist and successful administrator a job.

Surely you can do better! And please do. If he was routinely requiring people to join prayer circles with him, refusing promotions to atheists, and so on, well, let's see some evidence and I'll be happy to join in opposing his nomination.

Reference back in the 150s and 160s to how if we knew all the rest of the postings PZ has made, we'd see what he meant. Ok, links to his earlier posts are fine. Google, searching on: NHGRI announcement collins clinton 'religious message' 'religious comment', and various combinations of those didn't turn up anything for me.

But, please, put forth some evidence.

Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | August 4, 2009 8:10 PM

Your search skill are way below average, Grumbine :

The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.

Go for it, I'm not about to slog through that crap. I don't need evidence of belief to believe the evidence. The existence and origin of evidence is not a question worthy of my time, I'm too busy trying to preserve the system which creates it.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 4, 2009 8:16 PM

Robert Grumbine, we don't have to justify our feelings to you. So, get off your high horse. You aren't the arbiter around here. And if you can't figure out where we are from hundreds of posts, further explanation will not satisfy you. And you know it.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 4, 2009 10:08 PM

heddle wrote:

Oh noes--advanced software will paint us in a corner and repudiate God? What will we do?

I imagine that, given you refuse to accept every other rational argument for the non-existence of your god and the vacuity of your religion, you'll continue with the current approach: Sophistry, Obfuscatory Tactics and Related Intellectual Dishonesty for Jesus™.

Posted by: Citizen of the Cosmos | August 5, 2009 2:08 AM

Yes as followers of Christ, they must lie and fight dirty. Just like their rolemodel Jesus would have done.

Posted by: Citizen of the Cosmos | August 5, 2009 2:10 AM

Also, I can't sign in using TypePad.

Posted by: strangebrew | August 5, 2009 3:24 AM

#213

While the analogy might not be the best ...the point is that Xians ...the more liberal kind...do indeed demand that orientation whether sexual or other is indeed kept firmly on a leash so as not to frighten the horses...while the more ...err committed kind prefer to openly discriminate against anything or anyone that does not go all weak kneed and unnecessary at a piccy of baby jeebus...

It is a seminal moment in the Sciences for the USA...after more then a decade in the doldrums...some would suggest longer... it is really time the act was got together...if the more... shall we say... accommodating... in the selection process prefer the warm glow of inclusiveness whatever the quality of the candidate...then this might be viewed as an opportunity to offer an olive branch of scientific ..'we are good guys really and do not hates the baby jeebus et al' in other words a sop to the radically brain dead...then it will go through because of and not despite of his orientation of delusion...the sciences will not be the beneficiary.

If on the other hand logic and honesty maintains the status quo...then this ridiculous notion will fail...science does not require woolly nonsense to keep it warm...it certainly does not require a deluded hand on its tiller whatever.

It depends on the probity and intelligence of the selection committee...

Don't give a flying tootle what jeebus lovers proclaim as evidence of scientific dismissal of their bollocks...it is totally irrelevant the best candidate should have the job...simple like so...it is far far from clear whether Collins is that candidate...

On the surface it would appear not quite such a brilliant idea for science in the USA...but I am not on the selection panel..I just hope those who are are smarter then the media and chattering xian classes...which ...let's face it ...should not be that hard.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 5, 2009 9:58 AM

Ah, the twits who think their imaginary deity exists. Somehow, they never get around to showing the physical evidence for that deity. Then they demand evidence from atheists. Hmm. You go first.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 5, 2009 10:19 AM

By calling us atheist you are strongly implying you are a delusional godbot. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a psychic to figure that out. So, show us evidence for your deity. Hard physical evidence that will pass muster with scientists, magicians and proffesional debunkers as being of divine, and not natural, origin. Or lose the 'tude.

Posted by: Ryan F Stello | August 5, 2009 10:24 AM

apuleius platonicus beat his chest

Nerd of Redhead, OM: if you can point to a single claim that I have made for which you would like evidence

Since Nerd didn't single you out when he said "the twits", something in that sentence made you take something personally.
Could it be the reference to an "imaginary deity"?

But I've got one that I'd like evidence for:

Francis Collins has been a working scientist for over 35 years - and NEVER have his religious beliefs interfered with his science.

Have at it.

Posted by: Ryan F Stello | August 5, 2009 11:08 AM

Please state which of the following is true:

Surely.

(4) apuleius platonicus makes an open challenge, and when met takes 30 minutes on a reply that ignores the question and repeats him/her/itself, showing an extreme lack of creativity.

(5) I'm not emotionally invested in this Collins/NIH thing, but did ask a genuine question of apuleius platonicus in terms of how he/she/it could ignore Collins' own statements on the interrelationship of science and his religious beliefs (which he/she/it can easily find).

(6) apuleius platonicus assumes the opposite of (5) when talking with anybody, as if it was the most important question in the world.

(7) I find enjoyment in apuleius platonicus's petulance.

Posted by: heddle | August 5, 2009 11:24 AM

Ryan F Stello,

You asked apuleius platonicus, in #220, to provide evidence for a negative, chucklehead. I recommend studying "Russell's Teapot" for a beautiful lesson on why requesting evidence that Collins "religious beliefs never interfered with his science" is nerd-of-the-redhead-OM batshit crazy.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 5, 2009 11:38 AM

My goodness Nerd, it's not even 9:00 AM and look at all the feathers you've ruffled. Nice job. :p

Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 5, 2009 11:44 AM

My goodness Nerd, it's not even 9:00 AM and look at all the feathers you've ruffled. Nice job. :p

I have to say that anyone who gets Heddle spluttering about Russell's teapot, and people being batshit insane without him showing the slightest indication he recognises the irony is doing OK.

Posted by: Ryan F Stello | August 5, 2009 11:50 AM

Heddle argued,

You asked apuleius platonicus, in #220, to provide evidence for a negative, chucklehead.

Your reputation precedes you.

Then you don't know that in RT's formulation (key: it's not limited to Affirmative statements, just unfalsifiable claims), 'Never' is just as untenable as 'Always', or in terms you can understand:

Saying "Definitely, no Gods could ever exist" is as untenable as "Definitely, Gods exist".

Which is why I asked our friend to prove the statement.
He did, after all, make it.
It's not like pointing out an untenable position makes my own position untenable...doofus.

By your own position, I should be free to say that Heddle has never thought an argument through.
Actually, I might even argue that that is true.

Posted by: Ryan F Stello | August 5, 2009 11:59 AM

Matt Penfold,

Thanks for the complement, I do try my best (but rarely can find the time to practice).

Still, sad to see that Populous Andronicus has wandered off into the poppy fields.

Posted by: heddle | August 5, 2009 12:15 PM

Matt Penfold ,

One is free to reject, at the moment, the scientific explanations for the origin of human morality--for they have not been demonstrated experimentally. They are not explanations--they are conjectures. Reasonable, perhaps, but just conjectures.

The real question is: would Collins intervene to prevent funding of such experimentation? There is no evidence that he would--in fact, on the contrary, his certainty of a divine explanation for human morality could very well lead to his being supportive of such funding for at least four reasons:

1) To avoid the appearance of a bias--i.e., he could overcompensate. That would not be without precedent.

2) Because he fully expects a negative result.

3) Even a positive result would not be damaging to his theology--just as evolution is incorporated via "theistic evolution" such as result would be understood as the way God did it. Not that he has to worry about that for the foreseeable future.

and, most importantly and most relevantly,

4) Because he is, and has always demonstrated, the ability to perform his responsibilities professionally.

Every person in history who was placed in charge of a scientific budget had/has bias. If, hypothetically speaking, the head of the DoE strongly disliked String Theory--does that mean he'll cancel all String Theory grants? Of course not.

We rely on men and women of integrity to follow established peer-review processes when evaluating grants. Collins has given no indication that he would not behave professionally. But garden-variety bigots like PZ, Harris and Coyne continue to lie--as slug-like bigots are wont to do--and claim that it has been demonstrated that he would allow his religion to interfere.

Knockgoats,

You moron, apuleius platonicus made the claim.

You too should study Russell's teapot. If an atheist says "there is no evidence for God," there is no onus on the atheist to provide evidence that there is no God (duh).

The onus is entirely on those who make the positive claim, that Collins's religion will interfere with his science. The extent of that evidence appears to be that it is "pretty clear" to the folks around here that it will.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 5, 2009 12:23 PM

The onus is entirely on those who make the positive claim heddle

This is not relevant to my comment, which concerned your stupid claim that one cannot give evidence for a negative.

Posted by: apuleius platonicus | August 5, 2009 12:59 PM

Time is up. PZ Myers claim that Francis Collins at some point in time bragged about "adding religious messages to NHGRI announcements" is hereby declared a LIE until proved otherwise, and Myers himself is declared a LIAR.

This is what scientists call a strong hypothesis. It fits the evidence, it is simple and direct, and it could easily be proved wrong if it were wrong (all it would take is a properly sourced direct quote from Francis Collins saying what Myers claims he said).

It also has significant explanatory power since it tells us a great deal about Myers and the things that he claims.

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 5, 2009 1:02 PM

...and this is different from a biologist being openly and avidly evangelical about atheism HOW? I certainly hope this means we won't be hearing more tirades from PZ about people taking issue with a scientist such as himself being so confrontational.

Simple, Dildo.

Don't hire PZ to be Grand Wazoo in charge of MegaChurch administration.

Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 5, 2009 1:42 PM

apuleius platonicus, why would a proud pantheist(?)such as yourself be content to ask these questions on the end of a page instead of the begining?

Posted by: E.V. | August 5, 2009 1:54 PM

Since what Ken just posted has already been posted before by PZ, it makes you a little ridiculous, apuleius platonicus. The blatantly biased need to criticize your hated "New Atheists" has made you willfully ignorant. Have fun with your Wiccan interests, friendly agnostic retreader.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 5, 2009 2:03 PM

Bilbo, he who shame of the proud name

and this is different from a biologist being openly and avidly evangelical about atheism HOW?

First of all, atheism is the lack of belief in gods. Period, end of story. There is no further dogma. Nothing to evangelicalize. So your whole screed makes you look like an ignorant turd. Try to learn what things really are, not just your uninformed opinions of them.
Secondly, science is an adeistic process. It ignores god. So being an atheist helps with being a scientist because one doesn't have to compartmentalize one's professional work from one's religion. Our worry with Collins is that his comparmentaliation leaks.

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 5, 2009 2:31 PM

OOL...

Object-Oriented Language (heddle only does Bible coding)
Origin of Language (heddle a Babelist?)
Origin of Life (heddle rooting for magic. surprise)
Out of Luck (heddle, clapping for Tinkerbelle)
Oodles of Laughter (what I get from reading heddle)

Posted by: Ryan F Stello | August 5, 2009 2:40 PM

Heddle (#247) commented,

I think that there are two areas where, in all honesty, I hope science has, broadly speaking, negative results: 1) the multiverse and 2) OOL.

Wouldn't a more honestly scientific view be to not dwell on your feelings and desire for a given outcome and instead, not worry about the outcome at all ('tis what it 'tis)?

And if you agree, do at least see why some here draw concern when Collins expresses what seems to be an honest, but not scientifically honest view?
If you disagree, why would the opposite be a more honestly scientific view?

Posted by: heddle | August 5, 2009 3:02 PM

Ryan F Stello,

Wouldn't a more honestly scientific view be to not dwell on your feelings and desire for a given outcome and instead, not worry about the outcome at all ('tis what it 'tis)?

You must believe the myth of the perfect scientist--the superman who wants only truth, and feels no personal, emotional stake.

In reality, I suspect we (scientists, that is) all are convolutions of this truth, justice, and american-way scientist and selfish bastards. Most scientists, I believe, a) want only the truth to be propagated, b) support all legitimate avenues of research, including the competition and c) hope like hell their favorite models/theories receive experimental support while the competing theories/models fail the test. Thankfully professionalism, the scientific method, and peer-review keeps our biases in check.

Everyone wants to be a winner. Collins is no different, I suspect.

If you think String Theorists don't hope that String Theory wins at the expense of Quantum Loop Gravity, if you think that they are solely and perfectly "tis what it 'tis", then you are, I submit, delusional.

At the same time they can be perfectly fine scientists and would never dream of cutting out funds for competitive research.

Just like Collins.

Posted by: Ryan F Stello | August 5, 2009 3:27 PM

You must believe the myth of the perfect scientist--the superman who wants only truth, and feels no personal, emotional stake.

You must have an inability to read a statement without reading things into it.
You also miss the point that expecting an outcome of an experiment is different than having strong feelings about the outcome of an experiment.

I would say that a scientist SHOULD be impartial about the outcome of his/her work, but that's a far cry from me saying
that this is always the case.
Maybe you believe in the myth that a scientist cannot POSSIBLY do this?

Don't be an asshole; I've turned off my own dickitude when working with you except when you yourself were being one.

Posted by: bilbo | August 5, 2009 6:55 PM

Holbach and Nerd,

Did I say I was a theist? (Hint: Im not.) Apparently, by your "logic," simply disagreeing with an atheist makes one a theist - and deserving of some god-bashing rhetoric . How pathetic.

You are more ignorant than any theist I've ever despised. And you make atheism look like a joke.

Please do us all a favor and use your brain, or shut up.

Posted by: E.V. | August 5, 2009 7:10 PM

Bilbo is an accommodationist. A shrill, strident and, above all, humorless accommodationist who loves him some Mooneyite/Nisbetian salaaming to all things civil in discourse.... although he did just write "shut up"...

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 5, 2009 7:43 PM

Bilbo is an accommodationist. A shrill, strident and, above all, humorless accommodationist who loves him some Mooneyite/Nisbetian salaaming to all things civil in discourse.... although he did just write "shut up"...

That's the hallmark of a Angry New Militant Accomodationist. If you're an atheist telling a religious person that science and religion aren't compatible then you're shrill and strident; however, if you're someone telling atheists they're not allowed to say that to the religious because you'll hurt their delicate feelings then you're a shining beacon of tolerance and understanding.

Basically, they are people who don't understand the goose/gander beneficial equality principle.

Posted by: Holbach | August 5, 2009 8:26 PM

bimbo @ 256

You don't have to specifically tell us what you are. You tell us by not telling us what you really are. We can glean from your puke bullshit what you really mean to tell us. You are not a theist? Hint; you are a religionist posing as a theist posing as a bimbo with your convoluted rhetoric pretending to have atheist tendencies. No good. Your god has found you out and we have found you and your imaginary god lacking as real at all. We don't joke with our atheism, but use it and our brains to scour out phonies of every religious stripe no matter how much bullshit they profess to make us believe otherwise. Atheists can spot phonies. Religionists can't spot each other for the bimbos in the mass.

Posted by: E.V. | August 5, 2009 8:54 PM

It's settled then, Dildo it is! See, we can be very accommodating too.