« Motivational Reading
Main
Have A Snake Problem? Try Prayer »
July 8, 2009
I'm Not Sure What I Think About This
President Barack Obama is choosing an influential scientist who helped unravel the human genetic code _ and is known for finding common ground between belief in God and science _ to head The National Institutes of Health.Obama called Dr. Francis Collins "one of the top scientists in the world" in announcing his nomination Wednesday. [Huffington Post]
Francis Collins is a very well respected scientist and a successful manager of one of the largest science projects ever undertaken. He is also a Christian who puts a positive value on tradition based faith. The first point makes him a great candidate to run the National Institutes of Health. The second point is what causes me some ambivalence.
A Christian who understands and promotes science in a prominent position will make it somewhat harder for those who want to claim that one cannot be a Christian or even a theist and "believe" in evolution. I put "believe" in quotes because it is rather obvious to me that "believing" in God, for example, is quite different from "believing" in evolution. Believing in God is tradition based faith; believing in evolution is evidence based. And if an inconsistent, fragmented, epistemology didn't bother me, I'd have no problem with any of this and therefore no problem at all with Francis Collins as head of the National Institutes of Health. He'd be a great choice!
But I try rather hard to have a consistent, unified, epistemology. The epistemology I have adopted, the only one that makes any sense to me, tends to place a negative value on any faith that isn't evidence based. There are things we know approximately and may come to know better; things we think we know but are wrong about; things we don't know very well but might know better given time and effort; and things that are unknowable. Exactly what many of those unknowable things are may itself be unknowable. I'm more than find with all this but there is no room in it for tradition based faith other than as a target of inquiry.
Therefore, an appointee who positively values tradition based faith as head of an agency with the following goals troubles me.
- foster fundamental creative discoveries, innovative research strategies, and their applications as a basis to advance significantly the Nation's capacity to protect and improve health;
- develop, maintain, and renew scientific human and physical resources that will assure the Nation's capability to prevent disease;
- expand the knowledge base in medical and associated sciences in order to enhance the Nation's economic well-being and ensure a continued high return on the public investment in research; and
- exemplify and promote the highest level of scientific integrity, public accountability, and social responsibility in the conduct of science.
On balance, I guess I'm okay with the appointment. It has more pluses than minuses. I do hope that Collins can keep from using his new role to further his brand of faith while he helps us improve evidence medicine and health care.
Posted by Duane Smith at July 8, 2009 8:23 PM | Read more on Current Events |
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telecomtally.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2930
Comments
It's probably good to be not sure and sure about being not sure. We just returned from a fine performance of Death of a Salesman - whew! I liked As You Like It better.
Posted by: Bob MacDonald at July 8, 2009 11:25 PM
Thus far, it seems to me that Collins has a fine record as a scientist and—perhaps even more importantly—an administrator. One might easily disagree with the faith-based spin that Collins sometimes puts on the results of scientific inquiry, or feel uncomfortable with his occasional penchant for almost silly mysticism (can you spell "frozen waterfall"?). But personally, I'm unaware of any evidence that Collins's Christianity has influenced the process or results of his scientific inquiry, though it may affect his motives.
Posted by: Christopher Heard at July 9, 2009 7:43 AM
Bob,
Help! I'm not completely sure what to make of the first sentence in your comment.
Chris,
You are correct. I have never heard of a single example of Collins' faith coloring his science. That is not exactly my worry. My worry is that Collins may even inadvertently relate his faith in ways that will send a mixed (or even unmixed) message to the less critical.
Posted by: Duane at July 9, 2009 8:37 AM
Sorry Duane - missing comma or dash after the first sure. It's sort of equivalent to the question you raise on his 'consistent' epistemology, though you are focusing on the negative aspects - inconsistent and fragmented.
I cannot see that inconsistent and fragmented is much of a complaint against anyone. I would expect a consistent and unfragmented epistemology to be provably incomplete. (There's Job's problem in a nutshell, anticipating Gödel.)
Being sure that I am not sure is kind of like holding that phrase in mind "I might be wrong about this". Do you think "faith" can "be consistent with" such a thought?
Posted by: Bob MacDonald at July 9, 2009 1:02 PM
Post a comment
Please read Abnormal Interest's Comments Policy.