http://www.nature.com/news/2009/0907...l/460310a.html

NIH nominee draws scrutiny: Francis Collins is likely to face funding challenges — and criticism of his Christian evangelism.

----

As Francis Collins prepares to take the helm of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), opinions are divided about how the geneticist will steer the agency through its extraordinary funding boom....

A link to Sam Harris' review of "The Language of God" seems to be in order here.

Sam Harris isn't nominated for the job.

What Collins himself says is more relevant:

A Plea For Reason

"Let me conclude this brief chapter, therefore, with a loving entreaty to the evangelical Christian church, a body that I consider myself a part of, and that has done so much good in so many other ways to spread the good news of God's love and grace. As believers, you are right to hold fast to the concept of God as Creator; you are right to to hold fast to the truths of the Bible; you are right to hold fast to the conclusion that science offers no answers to the most pressing questions of human existence; and you are right to hold fast to the certainty that the claims of atheistic materialism must be steadfastly resisted. But those battles cannot be won by attaching your position to a flawed foundation. To continue to do so offers the opportunity for the opponents of faith (and there are many) to win a long series of easy victories.

Benjamin Warfield, a conservative Protestant theologian in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, was well aware of the need for believers to stand firm in the eternal truths of their faith, despite great social and scientific upheavals. Yet he saw also the need to celebrate discoveries about the natural world that God created. Warfield wrote these remarkable words, which could well be embraced by the church today.

We must not, then, as Christians, assume an attitude of antagonism toward the truths of reason, or the truths of philosophy, or the truths of science, or the truths of history, or the truths of criticism. As children of the light, we must be careful to keep ourselves open to every ray of light. Let us, then, cultivate an attitude of courage as over against the investigations of the day. None should be more zealous in them than we. None should be more quick to discern truth in every field, more hospitable to receive it, more loyal to follow it, whithersoever it leads".

Quote from Francis Collins' chapter 7 of his book The Language of God.

My beliefs are pretty damned simple. Someone who believes that people deserve to be tortured shouldn't be in charge of healing people. Someone who believes that it's impossible to heal the world shouldn't be in charge of healing the world.

So you would rather support a naive optimist than a realist?

Mission of the NIH:

Francis Collins will probably take the helm of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), and this is a powerful and influential funding organization that directs much applied and pure basic scientific research in the Untied States, a leading and influential nation in science, but the NIH is not an organization charged with 'healing the world'. If any organization deserves that characterization (and I submit there really isn’t one that could fit so broad an agenda) it would be the world health organization (WHO). Incautious hyperbole doesn’t make for good augmentation.

-Zeno

Mr. Collins is a realist?

Was a naive optimist skipped over in favor of Mr Collins?

What are the criteria that distinguish a realist from a naive optimist and were nominees subject to some testing scrutiny on these particular characteristics and objectively scored?

More questions come to mind but i'll let others fill in the blanks.

-Zeno

so are you saying we shouldn't read any serious criticism, just take what anyone says based on what they say and take their word for it? think about that, "we shouldn't listen to anyone who criticizes (insert political candidate), just listen to what they say". because, ya know, no one who was ever in the running for a powerful position has ever misrepresented himself.

This is a misrepresentation of Collins.

Collins never said he believes people deserve to be tortured.

Besides you are denying reality with this statement. Collins has personally healed people. He was instrumental in identifying the genetic marker for cystic fibrosis.

Acquiescing to God's capacity to act as a Judge doesn't equal an opinion that people deserve punishment. Any more than someone who get outs of the way of the activities of a policeman are advocating a criminal be punished. They are simply observers or bystanders.

That is an equivocation/assumption you are forcing on Collins to make your counter argument. You are in effect making it requisite he deny his own acceptance of reality and accept your alternate version of reality.

Personally I think it is completely appropriate for Collins to face careful scrutiny which is of course going to be led by those who hold significantly different views from him. Aggressive examination is the only way a confirmation process is viable. Having said that, he is an accomplished scientist without (to my knowledge) any wrongdoing and should eventually be confirmed. This is a democracy (not exactly I realize so don't nitpick) and we will all have to accept that we will have people who disagree with us on fundamental issues in positions of power from time to time. I consider this very similar to Sotomayor. I am not very keen on her "wise Latino woman" comment and am not confident that she was totally honest when she now distances herself from that. But, she is a respected and accomplished judge with support of her peers and no wrongdoing and should be confirmed eventually. My only concern is that the examination be robust in all cases.

No I'm saying you examine the source itself first before any secondary opinions either pro or con.

Harris himself isn't unbiased.

Can he point to a single abuse of power by Collins in other positions? I doubt it. With Collins high profile if he'd lost his objectivity then it would have made public news.

Here is PZ Myers' blog post about this, with which I agree. It also includes links to Jerry Coyne's and Steve Pinker's reactions:

PZ Myers on NIH nominee

The American people have no objection to the appointment of Collins:

A recent study by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found that 83% of Americans profess a belief in God; 61% see no conflict between science and their own religious beliefs [6]. In contrast, just a third (33%) of scientists interviewed say they believe in God. Thus, although it may be that scientists are more at odds with Collins’ views, his nomination shows that the Obama administration hopes to move beyond the science-religion dichotomy that has existed in the U.S. for the last 150 years.

Also:

others have expressed optimism about the nomination. John Porter, chair of the science advocacy group Research!America said that Collins “understands all of science and has a broad vision for advancing human health through research” [4]. Jonathan Moreno, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, said that Collins has a “remarkable combination of qualities” as well as a “deep understanding that American science needs to be informed by our values”.

excerpts from this article:
http://www.highlighthealth.com/healt...d-to-head-nih/

I don't understand how you can have an issue with the belief that as a natural order of the universe some will be destroyed, and that there are consequence of our actions.

Do you also feel it is wrong to believe that if some eats Mcdonalds 3 times a day they will get fat?

Yes, getting fat after eating fast food is a great analogy for eternal torture for not believing in God.

Well, I would not say that it is just about not believing, nor would I say that hell is eternal.

But that doesn't really matter. A truth does not become less truthful if you do not like it.

It is a perfect analogy.

It really a question directed at perspective:

What does it mean to "heal the world"? Is this the mission of the NIH?

This "pretty damned simple" belief seems pretty useless when it comes to trying to understand how to apply it in some realistic manner. It seems to advocate empty idealism as opposed to a practical approach.

No, it's a terrible analogy.

Since when is the existence of Hell an obvious truth?

It is not a matter of even how obvious it is or is not.

So then what exactly are you commenting on with that analogy?

Sorry to hear that.


PairTheBoard

Thankfully you offered up the mission of the NIH, which includes "foster fundamental creative discoveries, innovative research strategies, and their applications as a basis to advance significantly the Nation's capacity to protect and improve health" (US NIH-funded medical research plays a major role in treatment throughout the world), and including research "in the causes, diagnosis, prevention, and cure of human diseases." But hey, if you just want to stick with the nation, "the NIH provides leadership and direction to programs designed to improve the health of the Nation." So we'll stick with "heal the nation" instead.

Collins believes that we will never cure the diseases. He believes that in the end times, plagues will increase and disease will overtake the world. He does not believe in a future of improved health and of innovation reducing suffering - he believes suffering will increase and the world will face cataclysm and calamity.

The NIH mission is a hopeful mission for improving health in the future. If a person believes there is no hope for the future, then I am disturbed that such a person is the steward of such a hopeful ("naively optimistic" if you prefer) goal. The NIH funds much of the research that has the potential to eliminate disease and create advances that improve public health as much as sanitation did. I have trouble believing that someone who thinks such advances are impossible as we are ultimately doomed will . I mean, the fact is that we have someone in charge of human advancement who believes that human advancement is fundamentally misguided, and that only advancement inspired by God will (ultimately) yield dividends. Christ, he associates himself with the belief system that has caused tremendous health problems by preventing the best research (particularly stem cell research) and by fighting to remove public research funding in favor of military spending and other such objectives. The person in charge of the research should not be, imo, part of the group materially opposed to it. I don't think there is any valid reason to block his appointment, but I am disappointed in Obama for making that appointment. If he is looking to win points for "integrating" science and religion, there are better ways to do it than to potentially sacrifice our medical advancements.

(This doesn't even touch on the clear fact, based on his book, that if scientific findings do conflict with his religious beliefs he will favor his beliefs over the scientific findings - I don't see how this is compatible with "the highest level of scientific integrity, public accountability, and social responsibility in the conduct of science," which would entail valuing the findings of science over one's personal opinions.)

I don't. I have an issue with the belief that this would be a desirable state of affairs, and I have issues with someone who has such fatalistic and gloomy beliefs being in charge of the light of progress. "Well, I am absolutely certain we're all going to die in darkness, but hey guys, hand me the flashlight."

I feel that it is extremely nasty that people who eat McDonald's have high rates of obesity and heart disease. If I could fix the problem I would, and those who claim it's just and that it's a good thing that fast food is so devastating to our health hold a cruel and ugly position.

But a more correct analogy: I feel that if someone believes salad greens are unhealthy and the Atkins diet is the best way to ensure long-term heart health, they should not seek leadership of their local hippie grocery co-op.

1) Can you cite something to support your claims? I want to know the context in which these beliefs are understood because...

2) Even if he believes that it's a losing battle, is this such a bad thing? Despite our best technology, everyone is facing a losing battle against death. Is it wrong for a doctor to come to the table who willingly admits that death is the most likely outcome?