I think I’m glad I’m not Francis Collins, because I don’t have the stomach for being in the middle of so much nonsense!

Add to all this the fact that he was homeschooled through sixth grade, and I think we have a nearly perfect candidate for public office.
Of course, that sets of yet another set of heebie-jeebies…
I’m just glad that both Obama & the scientific community seem to think he’ll be O.K. (The Scientist points out that engaging with & healing mistrust between Evangelicals & scientists is part of what makes him appealing.) We really need a Christian who can be a different public face for Evangelicals – the more diversity among faithful Christians becomes visible, the more chance the Gospel will be heard!

Actually, this guy does sound like an ideal choice to me (although I’m at a completely loss as to how the fact that he’s homeschooled makes a difference one way or the other. I myself am proud of public education.).
The very fact that he DOES sound like a great choice makes me worry that few will accept him, though.

Scot, thanks for posting this. You articulate the summary of fears very well.
@dobderbeck, lol – agreed.
I’m a fan of Francis Collins and I wish more of us conservative Christians would appreciate him more. It also says more good things about Obama as well. For the “most liberal President”, Collins isn’t the obvious choice. I’ll be following this.

I think the appointment of Francis Collins is an outstanding one. He has done more than anyone else to demonstrate to those with an open mind that religion and science are not inherently at odds. His book on The Language of God has had a profound impact on the believing community and has helped me, a retired professor of Reformation History, to come deal with the connections between religion and science.

It is interesting to watch the discussion by those that would censor Collins because of his followship of Christ. In the past, persons who believed like those individuals presently oppressing Collins for his beliefs (religious oppression) regularly complained that they were censored and oppressed by those who espoused religious faith. Now, having gained sufficient power, they have become the censor and oppressor; they have become the very thing they originally detested. Bacon said, “Knowledge is power.” Foucault added an important qualifier: “Power is knowledge,” meaning whoever has the power [usually] determines what knowledge is allowed at the table. The [usually] is my qualification of Foucault’s absolutistic stance (i.e., always) on power and knowledge.

I would be one of those who follows this news with bated breath. I didn’t know, however, that the Human Genome Project had been deemed a failure by anyone. I’d have to disagree with that assessment.
If memory serves me correctly, it was Francis Collins’ team that discovered the gene that causes neurofibromatosis (NF), the incurable disease my son lived and died with. This happened in my son’s lifetime. The discovery of that gene led to the discovery of the gene that causes cystic fibrosis.
Just today, I learned that the New England Journal of Medicine has published a study indicating that a particular drug therapy may reduce tumor growth in some NF patients (http://www.ctf.org/For-Scientists/groundbreaking-nf2-trial-published-in-new-england-journal-of-medicine.html).
While this particular bit of research may not be connected, it just might. I’m curious to know his thoughts on human embryonic stem cell research.

cas,
In the late 80′s early 90′s his group at Michigan published a fair bit on the neurofibromatosis 1 gene – biggest paper in 1990 (855 cites to-date) – but the first papers on neurofibromatosis are 1987. His big discovery was cystic fibrosis gene published in 1989 (3800 cites to-date on that paper).
Collins’s scientific contributions are absolutely first rate.

Glad to hear of it. I remember his name being brought up on NPR, maybe for this post, soon after Obama’s election. There was quick acknowledgement of repsect, but hedging, due to his faith stance.
This does remind me of the appointment by Reagan of C.Everett Koop, and the heat Koop got for what he did. Will be interesting to follow and see how it goes for Collins.

I have read through his c.v. His background and experience are impressive by any measure.
I also heard him give the commencement at Baylor Medical School. Part of his address included him singing while strumming the guitar. He will win over most of his critics.

Thanks RJS,
This was phenomenal. My son was born in 1984 and diagnosed at six months old. The words incurable, brain tumors, blindness, deafness, disfigurement were terrifying. To here something like hope when he was still a toddler was amazing.
I do recall that the Nf work led to the CF discovery. That’s the connection. Also, while I’m on this topic, more people suffer from NF than cystic fibrosis, muscular distrophy, Huntington’s, and Tay Sachs combined. And, nobody ever mentioned psychiatric symptoms to us until after my son died by suicide when, in fact, 1/3 of patients have them. More work needs to be done in the area of education.That’s why I’m raising money again for The Childrens Tumor Foundation. This organization funds a lot of the research and educates families. Check out the 5 min. video at the bottom of my fund raising page for more information about NF:
http://www.active.com/donate/nfny2009/CSchell118

Perhaps predictably, attacks on Collins are coming from parts of the “intelligent design” crowd.
See the two July 8 entries on this blog from a writer affiliated with the Discovery Institute:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/kingdomofpriests/
One of the posts has a sensational title implying that Collins favors aborting fetuses with Down symdrome, when the linked interview does not really indicate one way or the other Collins’ personal position on that.
Collins is more dangerous than Richard Dawkins to the agenda of the Discovery Institute — a prominent living counterexample to the position that belief in biological evolution (without scientifically detectable gaps) cannot coexist with orthodox Christian faith. This appointment is bound to be unpopular with those heavily invested in the “culture wars” (on both sides).

AHH,
dopderbeck commented (#1) that he was glad that he wasn’t Collins as he doesn’t have the stomach for being in the middle of so much nonsense.
I agree (as I expect you may). Collins has taken a stand on his convictions and takes hits for it on all sides in the culture war. But I admire him for this – he will do what he thinks is right, not bend over to curry favor.
Collins is more dangerous than Richard Dawkins to the agenda of the Discovery Institute. But Collins’s position is closer to the norm for Christians who are active scientists. Some will look favorably on weak forms of ID, but not much more.
craig v (#19) on my earlier post today commented “Though my evidence is anecdotal, it seems to me that we as Christians are losing a large percentage of our children as they become young adults. It also seems to me that fewer and fewer Christians are entering careers in science.”
I don’t think that fewer and fewer Christians are entering careers in science – I think that fewer and fewer are managing to enter the process and come out the other side as Christian.
More importantly I don’t think that the blame here is on science or on the secularism inherent in the University. I place the blame squarely on the church, on Christians who dig a trench, suggest that the science is weak and easily refuted, that evolution is smoke and mirrors, and don’t provide the resources for students to build a robust and durable faith.

AHH (#12),
You are misrepresenting the “agenda” of the Discovery Institute (again). You lose my respect every time you do it. Why can’t you just engage in the debate on the merits, instead of creating a straw man you can knock down?
The comments by Klinghoffer did not mention ID at all as far as I can see, and focused on Collins’ views on abortion and stem cell research. It seems obvious that Klinghoffer is speaking just as much as part of the pro-life movement, but perhaps you don’t have the same animosity towards “the pro-life crowd.”
What this world does not need is Christians using misrepresentations to foment more hatred toward proponents of intelligent design.

Collins has a PhD in Physical Chemistry and an MD. Impeccable preparation for the kind of career he has had. I admire anyone who has an advanced degree in Physical Chemistry. I had to take a watered down two-quarter course (less higher math) in Physical Chemistry in doctoral work in biology and was glad to survive. If Collins were a Muslim or a Hindu I would admire his preparation. In addition, he has built strongly on that preparation in his career. He has already proven, IMHO, that he works well with and motivates other scientists, many of whom do not agree with his Christian views. This, in itself, multiplies the impact one person can have. The fact that he is a successful and admired administrator speaks to his impartiality in his love and respect for his “neighbors”.

pds,
No – here you are the one who just doesn’t want to face the facts. In one post Klinghoffer discusses Collins’ views on abortion and stem cell research – but with nothing to go on as Collins talked in generalities, not specifics.
If you go and look at all that Klinghoffer has to say about Collins you will see that it is mostly about evolution. Among other things he says: Readers of this blog will know that I’ve shown how Francis Collins makes a mash of the very serious religious belief that human beings are made in the image of God. More on Collins and his insipid theology here.

RJS- (#16)
“No – here you are the one who just doesn’t want to face the facts.”
What facts am I not facing? I did not say that Klinghoffer does not critique Collins view of the image of God or his views on evolution. Maybe you should read my comment again. What I said was “Klinghoffer did not mention ID at all as far as I can see.” Did he? I also said his posts are about abortion. Aren’t they?
You conveniently ignore my point about AHH’s nasty and misleading comments about “the agenda of the Discovery Institute.”
You are misrepresenting my comment in order to attack me, and you are silent about AHH’s nasty comments.
Quite a double standard. It seems that it is more important to you to trash the Discovery Institute than to foster civil discourse.

RJS @13,
I’d be interested to know if there are statistics about Christians and careers in science. You mention how many on scientific career tracks bail out of the faith after they see what the church taught them about science (often as “essentials”) was wrong. I agree that is a problem, but I think it is at least as big a factor that Christian youth avoid science in the first place, because of the pervasive distrust of science in much of Evangelicalism.
But I’m just speculating as to the relative size of those two problems (I suspect you are also). In any event, examples of scientists like Francis Collins (and to a smaller extent you and me, we hope!), who see science and our Christian faith as friends rather than enemies, will help in both regards.

pds,
As far as I can see the only nasty comment that AHH made was to state that the Discovery Institute has an agenda and that Collins was more damaging to that Agenda than Dawkins.
You know that I agree with this statement. What binds Klinghoffer (who write things like Messianic Jews and Theistic Evolutionists on his blog) with Jonathan Wells of the Unification Church with many of the Christians involved with DI? It isn’t theology or spirituality. It is an agenda to demonstrate that (1) Evolution is not true and (2) that evolution is inconsistent with faith.
Shouldn’t Christians have an agenda that puts Christ first and mechanism of creation second?

AHH,
I am also speculating about which is the bigger reason. I know of no study – my evidence is anecdotal.

pds @17,
I probably should not respond to your familiar sniping (and I think I won’t in the future), but I will say one thing.
I think it is clear that the “agenda of the Discovery Institute” features promotion of the idea that the theory of evolution and theism are enemies. Just like the “agenda” of Francis Collins’ Biologos project is to promote the idea that they are compatible. If you think pointing out how Collins’ approach to evolution and faith is opposite to that of the DI is “nasty and misleading” for some reason, I am just befuddled and have nothing more to say.

“What binds Klinghoffer with Jonathan Wells of the Unification Church with many of the Christians involved with DI?”
One thing that binds them is a desire for honesty about the evidence. Two: a willingness to look at evidence that supports evolution and the evidence that undermines it. (No fear of any evidence.) Three: a willingness to look at the entire fossil record and let it speak for itself. You want more?
Should Christian scientists only collaborate with other Christian scientists?
You said,
“It is an agenda to demonstrate that (1) Evolution is not true and (2) that evolution is inconsistent with faith.”
More misinformation. Michael Behe’s agenda is to “show evolution is not true”? Laughably false.
What was nasty in AHH’s comment was his false statement about the DI agenda. I thought that was clear in my comment.

AHH (#21),
Trust me, I am just as tired of responding to your “familiar” misinformation.
I just find it so sad to see Christian scientists attacking other Christian scientists with such simplistic caricatures of their position. I feel the need to set the factual record straight. It is tiring.
Let’s stop.

pds,
You are right – I misstated on evolution. I should have said that the agenda is intelligent design, a view where theistic evolution and ontological naturalism are equally wrong.
And pds – I challenge anyone here to read the material on the DI site and draw their own conclusions about the claim of “honesty” in dealing with the evidence. The level varies from place to place.
Behe is honest about the evidence – I don’t think that he is right in all of his hypotheses but he is honest.

“I just find it so sad to see Christian scientists attacking other Christian scientists with such simplistic caricatures of their position. I feel the need to set the factual record straight. It is tiring.”
PDS, I too am frustrated by all the attacks, and I think both theistic evolutionists and IDers go too far in their denunciations of the other viewpoint.

There is some good info on Francis Collins at these links:
http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/04/john-horgan-and-francis-collins.html
http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/05/new-atheists-on-francis-collins.html

AHH,
I have only anecdotal information, but I also think the fundamentalist Christian kids here in the Bible belt have been taught to avoid and distrust science. I would guess that over 75% of the local churches are some kind of Baptist, and most Baptist (and many others) are fundamentalist here in SC. I have some knowledge about what kids experience because I am a X-C coach at the nearby high school and because I talk with members of our church youth group. From what they tell me, almost all the high school biology teachers are creationists who find evolution incompatible with Christian faith. Also, a friend applied to teach biology at the local community college and the head of the bio department there was a creationist, she told me. I agree with AHH that this is a terrible (and unnecessary) problem for both Christianity and for science. SC spends more per pupil on education than other states I’ve lived in. Teacher academic qualifications are just as high if not higher. I wonder if one reason the dropout rate is so high and test scores so low because of the anti-science and anti-intellectual stance of so many of the SC churches? Perhaps the high rates of domestic violence and almost every other type of antisocial behavior here have something to do with this, too!
Doug

peelingdragonskin.wordpress.com
RJS and AHH,
We have lots of common ground. I agree with lots of what you have written here on theological topics.
I don’t think you should be making mortal enemies out of the ID folks. Michael Behe is not the only “good guy” out there.
If you criticized Klinghoffer fairly on the content of what he said, you might have me. I don’t agree with him on a lot of things. When you make his comments the basis of an attack on “the ID crowd,” you lose me, and you lose my respect. And I think you lose the respect of lots of believers. And you become part of the problem of the lack of Christians in science.
Is evolution compatible with Christianity? It depends on how you define “evolution.” It is not unreasonable to say that “unguided, undirected evolution” is incompatible. Lots of scientists define it that way. If you are going to attack people, you need to be very careful to define your terms.

peelingdragonskin.wordpress.com
One more thought on Christians going into science:
I think the philosophy of science espoused by RJS and AHH is overly rigid. I think holding on to such a rigid philosophy of science and being dogmatic about it will discourage students from entering science.
I think people like Dallas Willard, William Lane Craig and many of the ID folk are more broadminded in their philosophy of science, and many young people will find that more exciting, invigorating and intellectually stimulating. I know I do.
I think that their perspectives will encourage more young people to go into science.

pds,
I have listened to and read a bit of William Lane Craig and find him completely unconvincing. Others are free to disagree.
I have read every book by Willard except the last one. I find most of his stuff excellent and helpful. And I agree one hundred percent that we need to combat the assumptions of ontological naturalism in our world today.
But when you tell me, as you seem to be doing, that I should pay more attention to their interpretation of the scientific data than my own – or than I pay to others who are active Christians with the expertise to understand the science – well, it doesn’t wash with me at all.
I don’t want to make “mortal enemies” out of ID people. I don’t see this as sides in a culture war. I think that there is design – I don’t think that it is empirically (scientifically) discernible. I don’t say that because I am committed to a position – I say that because I have not yet heard an argument that I find at all convincing. If someone is going to prove me wrong and demonstrate that design is empirically discernible it must be on the basis of a sound scientific argument. I won’t concede that nonsense might be true and I come at this as an expert in my own right – looking at the arguments more than the credentials of the one who is making the argument.
I know that many scientists are antagonists in the culture war and that many wish to insist that evolution is unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable because they wish to eliminate the possibility of God; they wish to make a philosophical, theological, worldview statement and defend it as the only rational scientifically plausible option. I live in this world day in and day out – on the front lines. We must take a stand here. But in the long run I don’t think that it does any good to take a stand for ideological reasons that is not consistent with the data – and this I think is where I part ways with many – almost certainly with you.
My ground assumption is that God exists and that he created the world intentionally and with purpose. As to how he created – I am completely willing to allow our empirical observation of the world inform my thinking on his mode of creation. I will not assume that design must be empirically discernible and I will not assume that it cannot be empirically discernible.
But past study of history makes me wary of apparent evidence of design because “natural” explanations have so often filled apparent gaps. I see no evidence (yet) that design is empirically discernible. As a result I have thought quite seriously about when and why we would expect evidence of direct intervention by God. At this point is seems to me that discernible evidence of God is experiential – and our experience of God is not in creation of the universe – or even creation of life – but in his interaction with humans created in his image.
And this is far too long a comment – and late enough in the game that it is unlikely that anyone will read it – but I will post it anyway.

RJS (#30)
Great comment. I have lots of thoughts, but perhaps these angles are worthy of a separate post. Here are a few reactions:
I went back and found your previous comments that prompted my last comment:
You said:
“I think God is intimately involved in everything, but the only time this involvement is empirically discernible is in the miraculous involvement of relationship with people. I see no theological reason to think that creation requires miraculous intervention. From the evidence I see every reason to think that God’s involvement in creation is not “miraculous” or supernatural.”
I think you already know more or less where I disagree with you. I mainly feel that this is too narrow.
The point I want to make is with the next generation. You will encounter young people who think like I do, and I will encounter young people who think like you do. I think both voices are valuable. You are obviously a very bright person who simply reads the evidence differently than I do. I find that puzzling, but such is the beauty of the body of Christ.
You said,
“But when you tell me, as you seem to be doing, that I should pay more attention to their interpretation of the scientific data than my own – or than I pay to others who are active Christians with the expertise to understand the science – well, it doesn’t wash with me at all.”
No, I am definitely not telling you that. Interpret the data as you see fit. I am just saying that if you want to encourage young people to go into science, don’t discourage the ones that are leaning towards Behe and Willard ( http://peelingdragonskin.wordpress.com/2009/05/14/dallas-willard-on-design-arguments/ ) and the other ID folks.

Good thoughts on Collins’ appointment by John Stackhouse of Regent College, to whom Scot links sometimes:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/holy-post/archive/2009/07/12/a-scientist-who-believes-in-god.aspx
I’m not familiar with that particular blog (I don’t find anything about this on Stackhouse’s own blog), but judging by the comments after his post it is in need of wise voices like Stackhouse.

AHH,
Thanks for the link – these are good thoughts by Stackhouse.

I wonder if he’ll be reporting into the Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President?s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, John Holdren…
Does anyone know?

James,
NIH is in the Department of Health and Human Services. I am not sure of all of the reporting lines – but basically he would report to the Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services and thus the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius. Here is the DHHS org chart.

Sebelius is almost as bad. I mean, I don’t think she’s written in favor of mass sterolization of undesirables like Holdren has, but her position on the murder of undesirable babies couldn’t be more clear.
One could hope that Collin can stand strong, and even have an impact, but I’m thinking this is a token appointment.