August 8, 2006
PARADIGMATIC FOR THE PEOPLE:
The believer: Francis Collins -- head of the Human Genome Project -- discusses his conversion to evangelical Christianity, why scientists do not need to be atheists, and what C.S. Lewis has to do with it. (Steve Paulson, Aug. 07, 2006, Salon)
As the longtime head of the Human Genome Project, Francis Collins is one of America's most visible scientists. He holds impeccable scientific credentials -- a medical degree as well as a Ph.D. in physics -- and has established a distinguished track record as a gene hunter. He's also an evangelical Christian, someone who has no qualms about professing his belief in miracles or seeing God's hand behind all of creation. The cover of his new book illustrates this unusual mixture: The book's title, "The Language of God," is superimposed on a drawing of the double helix. "The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome," he writes. "He can be worshiped in the cathedral or in the laboratory."Collins hopes to stake out the middle ground between Darwinian atheists and religious fundamentalists. "Both of these extremes don't stand up to logic, and yet they have occupied the stage," he told me. "We cannot let either side win." Unlike so many of those players most invested in this culture war, Collins sees no inherent conflict between science and religion. Yet his book is likely to alienate plenty of people on both sides of the debate. His frequent references to God's almighty power might be difficult for secular readers to swallow. And his scathing critique of both Young Earth creationism and intelligent design probably won't attract the hordes of readers buying Ann Coulter's latest diatribe against evolution. [....]
You've said you were once an "obnoxious atheist." What changed you? Why did you turn to religion?
I became an atheist because as a graduate student studying quantum physics, life seemed to be reducible to second-order differential equations. Mathematics, chemistry and physics had it all. And I didn't see any need to go beyond that. Frankly, I was at a point in my young life where it was convenient for me to not have to deal with a God. I kind of liked being in charge myself. But then I went to medical school, and I watched people who were suffering from terrible diseases. And one of my patients, after telling me about her faith and how it supported her through her terrible heart pain, turned to me and said, "What about you? What do you believe?" And I stuttered and stammered and felt the color rise in my face, and said, "Well, I don't think I believe in anything." But it suddenly seemed like a very thin answer. And that was unsettling. I was a scientist who was supposed to draw conclusions from the evidence and I realized at that moment that I'd never really looked at the evidence for and against the possibility of God.
In your book you describe this as a "thoroughly terrifying experience."
It was. It was like my worldview was suddenly under attack.
Feeding the Monster (Seth Mnookin)
At the time of [Bill] James's hiring, some observers predicted the Red Sox would be transformed into a team that relied on the computations of pasty, number-crunching geeks and completely ignored the tobacco-chewing wisdom of traditional scouts. James found this viewpoint comical. "I believe in a universe that is too complex for any of us to really understand," he says. "Each of us has an organized way of thinking about the world--a paradigm, if you will.... But the problem is the real world is vastly more complicated than the image of it we carry around in our heads."
Hmm. I didn't know Ann Counter bothered making anti-evolution diatribes. Is the writer just projecting that on her? She seems to have become a pan-boogeywoman for the left, moreso than Rush ever was.
Posted by: Twn at August 8, 2006 12:07 PMTwn: No, it was a major theme of her recent book GODLESS. My co-author, Steve Verdon, has written about it extensively.
Posted by: James Joyner at August 8, 2006 3:13 PMHere are the two Verdon posts on Coulter/Evolution:
Ann Coulter on Evolution: Part 1
Ann Coulter on Evolution: Part 2
(Orrin--Sorry for the shameless non-self promotion, but it strikes me as relevant here.)
Posted by: James Joyner at August 8, 2006 3:20 PMID is no improvement on Darwinism--they're both nonsense.
He's a story about that section of the book:
www.talkreason.org/articles/coultergeist.cfm
Of course, Coyne is one of the funniest of the breed--acknowledging the peppered moth hoax but keeping the faith even in the face of science.
Posted by: oj at August 8, 2006 3:24 PMJames: Good links. I didn't realize Coulter was as off the rails about evolution as OJ. Interesting that OJ quotes the article approvingly, despite the statement that Collins "hopes to stake out the middle ground between Darwinian atheists and religious fundamentalists." I would have supposed that was insufficiently anti-Darwin for OJ's taste.
Posted by: PapayaSF at August 8, 2006 4:56 PMPap:
One hardly expects a guy whose entire ideology is falling apart to shift directly to the truth.
When Stephen Jay Gould realized Darwinism was just racism he ditched it, but didn't follow where his head led either.
Posted by: oj at August 8, 2006 5:00 PMWasn't Gould an atheist and a pretty hard leftist? And he never stopped believing in the basics of Darwinian evolution either, as far as I can recall.
(I'm still not sure exactly what you mean by "Darwinism": sometimes you seem to mean the folks like Richard Dawkins who believe evolution proves atheism, which I agree is silly, but sometimes you seem to mean everybody who believes humans evolved, or who believes in species. Or something.)
Posted by: PapayaSF at August 8, 2006 5:38 PMGenesis is a tale of evolution.
Posted by: oj at August 8, 2006 6:08 PMYou all may be interested in my postings on Coulter's antievolution claims at Talk Reason.org. Coyne's reprint article at TR was full of justified umbrage, but offered fairly general (though perfectly correct) summaries of the evolutionary evidence Coulter (or her Intelligent Design tutors) doesn't appreciate.
For those interested in the more detailed primary sources for the evidence, I am trying to offer a one-stop source for all that.
Posted by: Jim Downard at August 11, 2006 3:08 AMCoulter is wrong, of course, but more right than Coyne.
Posted by: oj at August 11, 2006 7:41 AM