It amazes me…just amazes me, that Richard Dawkins would question the effectiveness of Collins as a scientist because of Collins’ beliefs, AFTER Collins has proved himself effective as a scientist!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

It’s worth checking your sources since actually Dawkins writes in his book:
“Great scientists who profess religion become harder to find through the twentieth century, but they are not particularly rare.—-There are some corresponding examples in the United States, for example Francis Collins, administrative head of the American branch of the official Human Genome Project.”

I don’t find any criticism of Collins in that, he’s only used as an example of non-Einsteinian type of a religious scientist - GREAT scientist, even.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Francis Collins intends (his own words) to “promote a perspective of the origins of life that is both theologically and scientifically sound”..... which is to say he’s OK with examining nature as long as what he finds doesn’t conflict with theology.  Then some clipping occurs.

Questions:  Whose theology?  What century’s theology?  What tribe’s theology?  Why does (any) god speak through Francis Collins?  What’s that conversation like?  Why should the rest of us believe it or trust it or even ignore it?

As for his possible leadership of NIH:  Where precisely does his notion of “sound theology” intersect with United States’ health and safety research and deployment?....does Francis Collins locate his (Evangelical Christian) God at the Big Bang, or is his God battling Satan day-by-day in the human-vs-deadly virus struggle?

Given that Collins “is well liked in Congress”, what’s the chance we’ll get answers to any of these questions?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

What’s his position on embryonic stem cell research? That should indicate whether he’s qualified or not.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

how can you feel comfortable with anyone who invents truth; ; Collin’s segregation of natural (the domain of science) from the supernatural (the domain of god) relies upon the assumed existence of the supernatural; the dangers involved with inventing truth have been and continue to be evident to all humans; such should be in clearer focus to valid scientists

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Question: Why does “The Reason Project” have a “Hall of Shame”? Seems more appropriate to an orthodox or fundamentalist organization than an organization based on reason.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

As a school boy in ancient England, we were taught that Religion was what God had done and that science was how He did it; a far less confrontational approach than here in America.  The problem is, that while valid scientific results from experimentation can always be duplicated by different people in order to prove a particular idea, God has never been more than a fuzzy shadow of a cause.  God as an answer is nothing more than the face of the Virgin Mary in a toasted bagel, a stained image of Jesus in the concrete of an overpass or the face of Elvis on Mars.  God is created in the individual mind of man and therefore like fingerprints no two images are the same or even valid. God is a Rorschach Inkblot test that Francis Collins fails.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

George, the “Hall of Shame” showcases example of otherwise sensible, intelligent, and secular people pandering to religion.  The appointment of an true believer in religious magic to head a national scientific institution is a perfect example.  I don’t see why an organization based on reason shouldn’t highlight instances when people deviate from reason.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

gcheng,
Why is the appointment of Dr Collins, head of the human genome project, to this position pandering to religion? He is a capable, respected and experienced scientist. He completed a major scientific research project before schedule and under budget.  I don’t understand this story’s inclusion in ‘the hall of shame’. Francis Collins has a book outlining his beliefs and their relation to science( (its called the Language of God) if you want to find it out. It actually contains some of the best chapters I have read against intelligent design.

Unless I have missed something what exactly is the problem with Francis Collins? Should this hostility also be given to Kenneth Miller ? Maybe we could start an internet position to remove him from his position as a professor of biology from Brown? I don’t get it, or are we meant to dislike all religious people now and bemoan if they, rightly, advance in their careers?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Andrew,
Collins’ appointment (and by everyone else with similar nut-headed orientation) is a DISGRACE and panders to a religious agenda because they use their scientific background and/or achievements and ‘careers’ as a Trojan Horse: to promote the demolition of their own scientific expertise in particular and scientific rigor in general for the benefit of their own narrow-minded delusional religious ‘beliefs’…
And never the other way around, i.e., their religious convictions to REALLY promote science ! It seems that such a combination is a bit unachievable no matter if they try to explain their unexplainable psychopathology by “the Language of God” or just simply by “talking in tongues”…
All the same goes also to ‘moderates’ fence-raiders crypto-religulous ‘objectors’ like yourself and your excuses for ‘arguments’!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

As Chief of Genetic Programs for the state of California I have followed his career. From his publications and presentations at genetic meetings I attended I had no idea he was a Christian. I was surprized and shocked by his book The Language of God. After reading it several times and checking his references I felt compelled to refute his so called evidence that the scientific worldview can be rationally reconciled with belief in a personal supernatural God , Jesus. My book Decoding the Language of God will be released by Prometheus Books in December. I respect him as a scientist and administrator but I must temper that respect with my concern that his beliefs will result in some sacrifice to truth, like his use of outdated statistics to claim 40% of scientists share his belief in a personal God when recent survey show less than 10%.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Wow, so many of you sound like… Bigots. Isn’t bigotry mentioned in the Mission Statement in the masthead of this website?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.