Obama names evangelical Christian to run National Institutes of Health

Here is an extremely interesting post from an evangelical on Francis Collins.

Stephen

Obama names evangelical Christian to run National Institutes of Health

http://www.examiner.com/x-7462-Atlanta-Faith--Family-Examiner~y2009m8d16-Obama-names-evangelical-Christian-to-run-National-Institutes-of-Health

August 16, 12:15 PMAtlanta Faith & Family ExaminerPatricia Walston

Francis S. Collins’ science and religion clash?

Some say as a smart move on President Obama’s part, he named Francis S. Collins as the director of the National Institutes of Health who is being touted as an Evangelical Christian – or is he? Saying so don’t always make it so. For clarification, comment and educational purposes, I submit the excerpts from the following article written on a socialist web site.

World Socialist Web Site – Patrick Martin

http://wsws.org/articles/2009/jul2009/coll-j30.shtml

“….Francis S. Collins as the director of the National Institutes of Health. Collins, while an accomplished biologist and the leader of the groundbreaking Humane Genome Project, is an increasingly outspoken advocate of evangelical Christianity who has publicly declared that Darwin’s theory of evolution cannot explain the moral dimensions of humanity. (Who can explain the mind of God?)

In selecting Collins, Obama clearly bypassed many qualified scientists whose appointment would not have generated controversy over their outspoken religious views. The decision was intended as a deliberate accommodation to the religious right. (Remember this is a socialist newspaper. They would have preferred a devout atheist.)

While opposing the pseudo-scientific teaching of the creationists, known as “intelligent design,” Collins argued instead that there was no contradiction between evolution and religion. He claimed that *god created the world 13.7 billion years ago, set evolution in motion, and then intervened from time to time in human history, as in the Christ story. (Notice little “g” in the spelling of God.)

Collins claimed that there were aspects of human nature that could not be explained by Darwin’s theory. “Selfless altruism presents a major challenge for the evolutionist,” he argued. (Good thinking, Mr. Collins – but why stop there?) He reportedly had differences with the Bush administration’s suppression of certain areas of scientific research. He supported making use of the hundreds of thousands of human embryos discarded every year by in vitro fertilization clinics to conduct stem cell research.

Collins supported Obama in both the contest for the Democratic presidential nomination and in the general election.

As director of the National Institutes of Health, Collins will have a different role from his position as a scientist. He will head the most important and well-funded scientific organization on the planet. Over the next 14 months, NIH will spend $4 billion on research at its Bethesda, Maryland campus, while distributing $37 billion in research grants throughout the United States and around the world.

The selection of Collins was generally hailed in the corporate-controlled media as a clever maneuver by Obama, a way of paying tribute to religion while selecting an individual who defends evolution against creationism and opposes restrictions on abortion rights and stem cell research.

Both Christian fundamentalist and Catholic groups hailed the nomination, except for those devoted specifically to the promotion of the theory of “intelligent design.”

Over the past several years, Collins has become an increasingly vocal religious advocate. In his blog for BioLogos, entitled “Science and the Sacred,” Collins wrote: “Suppose God chose to use the mechanism of evolution to create animals like us, knowing this process would lead to big-brained creatures with the capacity to think, ask questions about our own origins, discover the truth about the universe and discover pointers toward the One who provides meaning to life. Who are we to say that’s not how we would have done it?” (Would this in his opinion make God also an animal? Evangelical Christian’s believe that we are created in the image of God.) . Mr. Collins looking at the baby to the left, how can you explain something so greater being created out of something so lesser? Perhaps if we stop teaching our children they descended from monkeys, they would stop acting like them.

British naturalist Richard Dawkins ridiculed this argument in a dialogue with Collins on science and religion published by Time magazine. He said: “I think that’s a tremendous cop-out. If God wanted to create life and create humans, it would be slightly odd that he should choose the extraordinarily roundabout way of waiting for 10 billion years before life got started and then waiting for another 4 billion years until you got human beings capable of worshiping and sinning and all the other things religious people are interested in.” Whatever the particular religious views of the nominee to head the NIH, however, the political significance of his selection by Obama is obvious.

Another article by writer Joe Kay for this socialist electronic newspaper sums up that they think, believe and wish for America and the world.

“Marxists too want to undermine the influence of religious movements, in the Middle East, in the United States, and around the world. Religion is inherently anti-scientific. It cloaks the real nature of society and repression, and it often serves as an ideological buttress for social reaction and militarism.

Since religion is conceived of only as an ideological phenomenon, it is ultimately the population itself that is to blame for belief in religion and whatever policies are justified in the name of religion. Not only does this often lead to right-wing political positions, it also fails utterly in offering a suggestion for how the influence of religion can be diminished.

In other words, the fight for scientific consciousness among masses of people, and with this a materialist world outlook, must be bound up with the attempt to explain to people the real nature of society and oppression. It must be bound up with a political struggle and a socialist movement”

The one thing that Mr. Collins does not seem to get in connection with Evangelical Christians is the Bible. Their faith and life choices are based on these Words. While Mr. Collins can call himself anything – that does not nullify the belief of Christians. He has the right to believe, claim, or espouse his interpretation of the creation story – which at least it not the “big bang” theory that there was an explosion in the universe and the world was created – that would be like throwing a huge blank book into the air and it coming down as the Atlanta phone book. There are just too many elements in the creation to be able to say they happened as a result of an explosion. Explosions tend to destroy not create. And while we are not the judge of each other – it would behoove Mr. Collins to realize that going to church does not make you any more a Christian that going into a garage makes you a car.

It seems that Mr. Collins through his own deductions is trying to put one foot on each side of the Grand Canyon. That stretches him a little too far. No matter what religious jargon, he might use – he is still an evolutionist. This seems just another ploy of those in our society who want to tear down and destroy the faith of others. If you can’t make something go away – just water it down – and make it less of what it was originally. Mr. Collins, you do not approach the Word and Love of God through science – you approach it through faith – faith is the substance of things not seen. as explained in Hebrews 11

By Faith

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

Also in Revelations 3 – God’s Word says: “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.”

Trying to combine the THEORY (something that has not been confirmed) and the Evangelical faith is like saying I believe the mother is a parent but not the father – believing only a half truth. May it be suggested that in the future scientist will try to put things like “love” under the microscope and explain it in scientific terms. For some things there is just no human explanation because they are of Holy God who is beyond man’s comprehension of all that He is.

We can all believe in science as God reveals to us those things which He has created – God is the epitome of scientists. He is something that science will never fully understand, prove or disprove – for God is Omniscient – knows all; God is Omnipotent – all powerful; God is Omnipresent – always present. Mr. Collins how can you put that in a test tube and explain those capabilities of God? God does not work through telescopes, microscopes, and test tubes to change the heart of man – but through His righteousness, faithfulness, and wisdom to touch his/her very soul.

Sir, an Evangelical is one who believes in the Gospel by life, explanation, and example of the Word of God. A scientist is only one who can study what God has created, discovering only what God allows. And how can one not believe in God when they study the intimate details of creation knowing what they see is beyond explanation to man.

Watering down the Word of God is just as ineffective as denying God. While men may scoff and try with all their might – they cannot prove that God does not exist and neither can they influence those who know that He does, not through science, but through faith that God is, has been, and will forever more be. And not for one minute will you convenience true Christian Evangelists that God has the form of a monkey – God is higher than anything He created – and we are created in the image of God – and therefore – the theory of Evolution is moot. And what a shame we have lived long enough in America to see the socialistic teaching of evolution as a fact – when it is not – when creationism is not even taught as a theory – give the facts of both sides – perhaps our students would decide that they have great worth being created in the image of God.

The New Atheists are Creating a New Theology

Just posted this to the LA Times:

Can I offer a new perspective? As a scientist and Baha'i who openheartedly embraces both science and religion, I can see that the New Atheists are-energizing and re-invigorating theology.

Yes, much of new atheism is profoundly unscientific, literalism often straight out of the creationist's playbook. But something else is going on: passion about the most basic questions of theology.

And much more, too. They are profoundly updating the language of theology, bringing it kicking and screaming out of its slumber of irrelevancy, putting modern concerns firmly on the table. The hate and rancor will die away, I predict.

This was in response to Chris and Sharil excellent op-ed:

Opinion

Must science declare a holy war on religion?

The so-called New Atheists are attacking the mantra of science and faith being compatible. Others in the science community question the value of confrontation.

By Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum
August 11, 2009

» Discuss Article (53 Comments)

This fall, evolutionary biologist and bestselling author Richard Dawkins -- most recently famous for his public exhortation to atheism, "The God Delusion" -- returns to writing about science. Dawkins' new book, "The Greatest Show on Earth," will inform and regale us with the stunning "evidence for evolution," as the subtitle says. It will surely be an impressive display, as Dawkins excels at making the case for evolution. But it's also fair to ask: Who in the United States will read Dawkins' new book (or ones like it) and have any sort of epiphany, or change his or her mind?

Surely not those who need it most: America's anti-evolutionists. These religious adherents often view science itself as an assault on their faith and doggedly refuse to accept evolution because they fear it so utterly denies God that it will lead them, and their children, straight into a world of moral depravity and meaninglessness. An in-your-face atheist touting evolution, like Dawkins, is probably the last messenger they'll heed.

Dawkins will, however, be championed by many scientists, especially the most secular -- those who were galvanized by "The God Delusion" and inspired by it to take a newly confrontational approach toward America's religious majority. They will help ensure Dawkins another literary success. It's certainly valuable to have the case for evolution articulated prominently and often, but what this unending polarization around evolution and religion does for the standing of science in the U.S. is a very different matter.

It often appears as though Dawkins and his followers -- often dubbed the New Atheists, though some object to the term -- want to change the country's science community in a lasting way. They'd have scientists and defenders of reason be far more confrontational and blunt: No more coddling the faithful, no tolerating nonscientific beliefs. Scientific institutions, in their view, ought to stop putting out politic PR about science and religion being compatible.

The New Atheists win the battle easily on the Internet. Their most prominent blogger, the University of Minnesota biologist P.Z. Myers, runs what is probably the Web's most popular science blog, Pharyngula, where he and his readers attack and belittle religious believers, sometimes using highly abrasive language. Or as Myers put it to fanatical Catholics at one point: "Don't confuse the fact that I find you and your church petty, foolish, twisted and hateful to be a testimonial to the existence of your petty, foolish, twisted, hateful god."

More moderate scientists, however -- let us call them the accommodationists -- still dominate the hallowed institutions of American science. Personally, these scientists may be atheists, agnostics or believers; whatever their views on the relationship between science and religion, politically, spiritually and practically they see no need to fight over it.

Thus the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science and the National Academy of Sciences take the stance that science and religion can be perfectly compatible -- and are regularly blasted for it by the New Atheists. Or as the National Academy of Sciences put it in a recent volume on evolution and creationism: "Today, many religious denominations accept that biological evolution has produced the diversity of living things over billions of years of Earth's history. ... Religious denominations that do not accept the occurrence of evolution tend to be those that believe in strictly literal interpretations of religious texts."

A smaller but highly regarded nonprofit organization called the National Center for Science Education has drawn at least as much of the New Atheists' ire, however. Based in Oakland, the center is the leading organization that promotes and defends the teaching of evolution in school districts across the country.

In this endeavor, it has, of necessity, made frequent alliances with religious believers who also support the teaching of evolution, seeking to forge a broad coalition capable of beating back the advances of fundamentalists who want to weaken textbooks or science standards. In the famous 2005 Dover, Pa., evolution trial, for instance, the NCSE contributed scientific advice to a legal team that put a theologian and a Catholic biologist on the stand.

Long under fire from the religious right, the NCSE now must protect its other flank from the New Atheist wing of science. The atheist biologist Jerry Coyne of the University of Chicago, for instance, has drawn much attention by assaulting the center's Faith Project, which seeks to spread awareness that between creationism on the one hand and the new atheism on the other lie many more moderate positions.

In this, Coyne is once again following the lead of Dawkins, who in "The God Delusion" denounces the NCSE as part of the "Neville Chamberlain school of evolutionists," those equivocators who defend the science but refuse to engage with what the New Atheists perceive as the real root of the problem -- namely, religious belief.

It all might sound like a petty internecine squabble, but the stakes are very high. The United States does not boast a very healthy relationship between its scientific community and its citizenry. The statistics on public scientific illiteracy are notorious -- and they're at their worst on contentious, politicized issues such as climate change and the teaching of evolution. About 46% of Americans in polls agree with this stunning statement: "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."

In this context, the New Atheists have chosen their course: confrontation. And groups like the NCSE have chosen the opposite route: Work with all who support the teaching of evolution regardless of their beliefs, and attempt to sway those who are uncertain but perhaps convincible.

Despite the resultant bitterness, however, there is at least one figure both sides respect -- the man who started it all: Charles Darwin. What would he have done in this situation?

It turns out that late in life, when an atheist author asked permission to dedicate a book to Darwin, the great scientist wrote back his apologies and declined. For as Darwin put it, "Though I am a strong advocate for free thought on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds, which follows from the advance of science."

Darwin and Dawkins differ by much more than a few letters, then -- something the New Atheists ought to deeply consider.

Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum are coauthors of the new book, "Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future."