Feel free to try to justify this statement in a sensible way. Until you do, I'm just going to assume you have no idea what you're talking about.

And keep pretending "reason" stands alone without assumptions. We'll see how far you can go with that.

You can't argue that since madnak opposes Collins because of a philosophical difference his argument is invalid or illogical when the reason for the difference is his belief that other side's policies cause more suffering.

Provide evidence that Collins' policies will "cause more suffering."

It doesn't mean that all assumptions are created equal or that we can't compare them.

I don't know much about him, but if the anti- stem-cell position is true, that would be one.

Suppose for the moment that the anti-stem-cell position is true. Provide evidence that Collins' policies will "cause more suffering."

Edit: And to be perfectly clear, here are madnak's positions:

I already said I am tentatively alright with him, pending how he handles the job, so please don't take this as an attack on him (I'm criticizing you, not him). You have absolutely no idea what past experience makes someone qualified for this job, you have absolutely no idea what skill set is necessary to perform this job well, and you certainly are in no position to speak to the potential risks of hiring someone with plentiful/little/no experience at the NIH. I'm sure you can find some link talking about some small part of this, and equally sure that you will post it and triumphantly declare that I'm wrong, but the reality is that you have shown repeatedly in this forum that you are probably not qualified to choose the best scientific mind between two average 8th graders, let alone the massive pool of research scientists available for this position.

Evidence? For what would hypothetically happen in the future? It's really quite obvious that it will cause more suffering, but you know good and well no evidence can be provided to prove a hypothetical. There is no foundation for the argument that a blastocyst is worthy of protection outside of religious doctrine. I would love to hear a logical argument to that effect if you have one. If the odds of anyone suffering over the destruction of 150 cells are 0, and the odds of alleviating at least come suffering via stem cell research are>0, then opposing stem cell research increases suffering.

I don't know where you're going with this, but afaik stem-cell research gives an increased possibility for finding new cures for diseases and other medical benefits and by opposing that he is opposing the possible prevention of pain and harm.

You're much closer to the point I'm making than Alex (which is also straying from madnak's positions as stated).

The mere statement of "I value this bundle of cells over that one" is one that is founded upon worldview assumptions. The question of whether human embryos are human, pre-human, or whatever, and the level to which there is an "acceptable loss" precede the question of "should we do this?" (If they don't, then the scientific endeavor is guided by the ends justifying the means, which is essentially the denial of ethics.)

The answers to those ethical questions are also grounded in worldview assumptions. If those cells are, in fact, value-less and meaningless, then there is no harm done in pursuit of that research. If they do have value and their status is not "meaningless" then we may increase the "harm" done by the act of destroying them. If there are alternative approaches that can be broadly accepted as ethical that provide the same potential but without having to breach the question of "harm" on the embryos, then it might be better to pursue this route instead.

So (and to the point I'm making with Alex), you're still stuck with facing up to your worldview assumptions that lead you to your conclusions, and there's no way around it.

(Note: I'm not arguing here for or against the details of stem cell research. I'm no biologist and have little of value to say on it. My point is specifically aimed at addressing Alex's position in post #100.)

Without getting into an argument on the merits of stem cell research in detail, the statement "embryos have no value" is very different from "destroying a blastocyst causes no suffering." Any argument that stem cell research is unethical is going to hinge on the value that comes from being a "potential human" (which incidentally is even messier now that any human cell with a nucleus is a potential human). I can't imagine an argument based on the capacity of the blastocyst to suffer.

So, if a scientist were to get up at a conference and suggest that we all offer praise to Ganesha for the successful results of his research, that would be hunky-dorey?

Come on now, you're being disingenuous.

Clearly, I am working from the position that my assumptions are accurate and that his (religiously motivated) assumptions are not. I'm not accusing Collins of being irrational. It is the conclusions that derive from his premises that I consider unacceptable.

1) Do you have evidence that he has actually done this? Even if he has...

2) I honestly think nobody would really care that much. Most of the time those words of thanks come at the beginning of the talk, when the speaker is thanking their academic institution, the institution providing the funding for the grant, their collaborators, and some other miscellaneous people as well. The attribution of success to one party or another does not change the quality of the results.

Get it right: It's the *PREMISES* you find unacceptable.

And you still have yet to prove your position to be non-hypocritical.

Sure, yeah. But largely on the basis of the conclusions that I believe derive from those premises.

You have yet to point out the hypocrisy.

No, I suppose it's a presumption based on his status as a vocal Christian evangelist.

Well, we disagree on the impact it would have.

Huge goal post shift to engage in an ad hominem attack all to satisy your scientific elitist mindset.

If the rationally scientific are so superior then why do they act so low?

I think I can examine an issue: 1) if I've read the person under question 2) it contains a worldwide ethical issue and 3) it involves the American public and taxpayer dollars.

Obv someone who is qualified on the science sees his expertise and if you can't see he has already significantly contributed to the NIH then maybe its because you don't want to.

You can keep repeating it, but saying that scientists are the best judges of other scientists is not elitism in any form.

Superior at what? I don't think I acted low, but I also never claimed my scientific expertise made me superior to anyone in anything except science.

Read what? All of his published research and other scientific discourse? Or his blog and some book he wrote about Christianity?

His capacity to handle this job contains a worldwide ethical issue?

Why would this have any impact on your ability to examine an issue? Again I will state that I think he's qualified and I don't have a real problem with his appointment, but don't confuse your personal interest in an issue with the ability to accurately assess it.

Have you ever been to a large academic conference and attended talks?

Are you ever going to produce any evidence for your claims against him?

Evangelical Christians dont think atheist should be put into positions of power within the government so out of pure pettiness i hope he doesn't get the job.

Ha ha...scientists aren't judging his science expertise as much as they are judging his ethics by claiming they impact his science.

The worldwide ethical issue is as Collins himself says the dilemma between the sanctity of life and the obligation to ameliorate suffering. Now Collins didn't become a physician and take a Hippocratic oath to undermine the amelioration of suffering and his gene research work pinpointed genetic areas that will lead to cures of several diseases.

This is an area where finesse is required between 2 opposing sides and there needs to be someone in the middle familiar with both sides.

Science needs to change gears here and go into slow gear instead of trying to slam home everything. Some times you have to play by feel.

There will always be legal/ethical issues surrounding human embryos/cells/reproduction.

I didn't say that at all, but the way you represent him indicates they are right to say it though.

the belief that life starts at conception is a religious belief, not a scientific one. that's why there is no dilemma, and if he perpetuates the existence of one then that is a shortcoming of his.
No. Why do you think that the purely religious belief that life starts at conception deserves a seat at the table where we determine the appropriation of scientific funding?

What does this even mean?

No, I've attended some talks at City but they were definitely never part of a large academic conference. I have seen video of some talks at large conferences.