Sam Harris, a prominent "strong" atheist, recently questioned the appointment of Francis Collins to head the National Institutes of Health.
Mr. Harris wrote, ironically: "It would seem a brilliant choice. Dr. Collins’s credentials are impeccable: he is a physical chemist, a medical geneticist and the former head of the Human Genome Project. He is also, by his own account, living proof that there is no conflict between science and religion. In 2006, he published 'The Language of God,' in which he claimed to demonstrate 'a consistent and profoundly satisfying harmony' between 21st-century science and evangelical Christianity."
However, Mr. Harris used Dr. Collins's own words to demonstrate disturbing inconsistencies. For example, Dr. Collins flip-flopped in asserting when God stands inside Nature and when God stands outside Nature. Mr. Harris also insinuated that Dr. Collins helps foster an epidemic of scientific ignorance by inserting God's intervention in the midst of evolution.
In my estimation Mr.Harris's article raises a variety of issues, including the contentious relationship between Science and Religion and first ammendment rights regarding freedom of religion (as it relates to public policy and an implicit religious test for office).
Was Barack Obama'a July, 2009 appoinment of Dr. Collins a stroke of brilliance--a bridge across the abyss of the culture war?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
I can't say I'd call it a stroke of brilliance, but I wonder just who Harris would have been happy with. A scientist who never speaks of religion? Perhaps.
Our intellectual discourse is much enriched by people who do address the science & religion intersection or meeting place. Are we going to Bork anyone who speaks his or her mind on the subject, so that the only people considered fit to run NIH will be those people who never let us know what they think, or, worse yet, don't think much about religion at all?
If we object to a religious test being used against us ("us" being anyone who can simultaneously hold ideas of science and ideas of religion in their minds) we should object to our friends using it as well.
Harris' concerns are definitely valid (Have you been to Biologos.org - the site and organization Collins founded?) but I'm always willing to see how somenone performs before passing judgment. The million dollar question and primary concern was well articulated in the final sentence of Harris article - "Must we really entrust the future of biomedical research in the United States to a man who sincerely believes that a scientific understanding of human nature is impossible?"
Post a Comment