It is uncontested that Dr. Collins is a highly accomplished scientist. Viewed from this perspective, Obama's appointment is a perfectly reasonable one. However, Dr. Collins also happens to be a very "proactive" Christian evangelical guy who has apparently argued that evolution is a process instituted by God, as well as proposing that is divinely ordained. He has written a book titled The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, as well as being a founder of the BioLogos Foundation wherein the central tenet is articulated as follows: "We believe that faith and science both lead to truth about God and creation."

The United States Constitution guarantees the right for individuals to practice their religious beliefs as they see fit. Hence, in this sense, Dr. Collins is perfectly within his rights to believe in all sorts of religious narratives. The problem is that he has taken his private beliefs into a very public sphere. As I discussed in an earlier post, it is exceptionally rare for scientists in general, and scientists of great repute in particular, to be believers. Hence, Dr. Collins is indeed a paradox. You might also recall my post wherein I tackled the evolution versus religion debate.

Suppose that a submits a grant application to the NIH to study the neuronal activation patterns of religious folks (this relatively new field is known as neurotheology). Or, let us for a moment imagine a different group of evolutionary scientists who submit a grant application to explore the Darwinian underpinnings of morality. These legitimate scientific questions are in direct conflict with Dr. Collins' publicly stated religious beliefs on these matters. What should we conclude? Assuming that Dr. Collins sits on the actual adjudication committees for these two grants, will his scientific training guide his thinking or will his religious beliefs rule the day?

Many readers of this blog are likely to have displayed horror at the idiocy of George Bush's and Sarah Palin's support for the teaching of Intelligent Design in schools (and their corresponding disbelief in evolution). Needless to say, as an evolutionary behavioral scientist, I wholeheartedly agree that this is nonsensical and outrageous. That said I hope that the same people who chided Bush for his unmitigated stupidity will find it in their hearts (if they are not blinded by sheer partisanship; see my post on this topic here) to proclaim with equal aplomb that Obama was equally idiotic in appointing a Bible-toting guy to head the NIH. This appointment makes as much sense as to appoint an individual who believes in faith healing to be Surgeon-General, or to appoint an astrologer to head NASA.

Soldiers in the trenches of war are "allowed" to be overtly religious. Priests can be openly religious. It is expected that contemplatives might be religious and/or . Directors of the National Institutes of Health should not be proclaiming that the ultimate truth lies in Evangelical Christianity. Obama's appointment makes as much sense as to appoint an atheist as the next Pope!

As a Jew (by cultural transmission) and atheist (by conviction), I am feeling left out by Dr. Collins' publicly stated religious beliefs. Thank Darwin (;) that as a Canadian I do not need to apply to the NIH for my research funding!

After two consecutive posts on atheism/religion, I promise to switch gears for my next post. Stay tuned. Ciao for now.

Source for Image:

http://thesituationist.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/god-versus-science-ti...