I'm gonna hurl.

It is unfortunate, but not surprising, that someone with Francis Collins' standing in the scientific community is also a religious activist intent on contaminating science with religious dogma. Or exploiting science to further an evangelical religious agenda. Or whatever it is he is after. I think that these efforts diminish both the scientific and the [mainstream] religious communities.

The tactic seems to be a common one in the evangelical community, which tries to co-opt science for its own purposes. The "Creation Museum", which portrays itself in scientific form, but which has exhibits that contradict centuries of scientific findings in geology, anthropology, archeology, and biology is a notable example. Intelligent Designers are in the same group, though they cloak the deism in their flawed, tortured arguments. Collins is articulate, but at the end of the day he is essentially in the same camp as those who try to convince you that humans and dinosaurs used to hang out together, and that the earth is only 5000 years old.

Well - I always thought where would Francis Crick go - when you had announced the structure of DNA to the world and got the Nobel Prize? Pretty hard to upstage that.

The last book that he published before he died was "The Scientific Search for the Soul".

So Collins is just following in some fairly distinguished footsteps, perhaps without knowing it.

Brian

Just as there are Christian fundamentalists, there are science fundamentalists who object when anyone dares to think outside their box. I'm not a fan of people who try to push their agenda by adopting the language and appearance of the other side, but I respect Francis Collins as someone who genuinely seeks to understand what truth exists in both directions. With his accomplishments in science, he's paid his dues and should be able to think about whatever he wants in peace. If he can get the John Templeton Foundation to fund his thinking, even better.

I know Francis well enough to tell you: he is not trying to push an evangelical view onto scientists. He is trying to explain to Christians who believe in a loving God that it is possible to accept the scientific method for understanding the physical universe. Many already believe this and enjoy the more sophisticated dialog Francis can deliver. Many accept both Christianity and evolution, as many people do no fear that science will find out anything that God does not already know. The history of science is filled with people of faith... many faiths.
For those who seek to sensationalize intolerance or promote rancor, I have only pity. For the spiritual and atheist alike, one thing everyone can learn, "the meek shall inherit the earth".

Well, I can appreciate the social goal of living in a community where both religious practitioners and scientists can feel comfortable and accepted. But it seems to me that one can achieve such a goal - and in fact that America has largely achieved such a goal - without having to co-mingle the two in theology. I have personally listened to Collins introduce 'God' into his scientific presentations in front of a science audience. It comes across as wholly inappropriate, and weakens his credibility.

I didn’t study F. Collins’ arguments in detail but I do not see anything wrong. Outright dismissal by some scientists of his views is trivial and not serious.
It’s worth to remember Isaac Newton’s remark on Moses, “ I do not pretend to understand Moses, but his writings represent scientific truth” (from a letter to Lock, quoted from memory). Also, it’s well known that Albert Einstein did not deny the existence of God. And finally the Bible describes correctly the sequence of events in the appearance of animal life from the ocean. Zecharia Sitchin tackled this question and why “God” is rendered in plural in The Hebrew Bible. Sir Isaac Newton learnt Hebrew at the age of ~54 years and studied the Bible in Hebrew.
Michael I. Lerman, M.D., Ph.D.