Francis Collins is a leading scientist who is a major critic of creationism, and intelligent design in general, he also endorses embryonic stem cell research, and holds to the belief, evolution is fact. So what is the problem? Collins of course wrote a book professing his worldly view about God through a book called; The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. He has a theistic-evolutionary viewpoint which has drawn criticism from those who believe only atheists should head the National Institutes of Health.
What I mean by this is, the editors of publications such as Nature, and Science as well as atheist bloggers like PZ Meyers, and even Dawkins. They claim his open belief about God will hamper raising funding even though he agrees with their story telling in science and also hinder science in general. Here is science criticism of Collins…
- Although few would disagree with a White House press notice saying that Collins’s work “has changed the very ways we consider our health and examine disease,” Collins does have critics. Some question his support of “big biology” in the genome project portfolio—with timetables and planned targets—and some are concerned about his outspoken Christian faith. He raised eyebrows, for example, when he recently launched a Web site, BioLogos, expanding on his 2006 book explaining how he reconciles his faith with the science of evolution.
- Although many scientists say geneticist Francis Collins will make a superb director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), not everyone is celebrating.
- A discussion about whether Collins’s very public religious views will influence his leadership of NIH played out on blogs early this spring and again in the past week. There seems to be little evidence for such worries, but they persist.
- Richard Dawkins, the biologist and prominent antireligionist, feuded with Collins for mixing science and faith.
- This spring, Collins raised hackles again when he and several other scientists launched a foundation and Web site, BioLogos, which claims that it “emphasizes the compatibility of Christian faith with scientific discoveries about the origins of the universe and life.”
- One prominent critic, Paul Z. Myers, a biologist at the University of Minnesota, Morris, who runs the anticreationist blog Pharyngula, faults Collins for suggesting that altruism cannot be explained by evolution and instead came from God. “Collins has got some big gaps in his understanding of the field of evolutionary biology,” Myers says. In comments this spring on Pharyngula, others fretted that Collins’s beliefs could influence his decisions on topics such as stem cells and sex research.
Obama’s nomination of Collins was quite a brilliant one if you a liberal and not a militant. Collins profession of faith would give the appearance of not offending the Christian community while employing bad science policy funded by the majority who don’t agree with all of it. Yea, the militants who only believe that in order to understand science one has to reject God would be upset because they feel one of their own wouldn’t cave to public pressure. But rather just force their brand of science on the public who funds it, and also doesn’t agree totally with it. No, this isn’t communist China, North Korea or even Russia, and no they are not the sole speakers for science.
If Newton was alive today, he wouldn’t be qualified to study gravity according to these militants because Newton believed the Universe was designed by God. It’s pretty sad and not biblical, and it also goes against the laws of this country.