Science, Religion, and Geneticist Francis Collins

I owe S. an email. She’s an old high-school friend, just about the only one I’m in touch with, thanks to – you guessed it – Facebook. S. is a scientist and nature-lover, a journalist and broadcaster, and also a fifth-generation atheist. We haven’t been having wild debates about faith and science, but she wrote to me recently about this guy Francis Collins who has been nominated to hold what may be America’s highest scientific post, as leader of the National Institute for Health.

Have you heard about this? From what S. says it sounds like Collins’ nomination is being fiercely debated. Most seem to agree that he’s extremely well qualified for the post. But he is also an evangelical Christian who has made some statements that seem, well, not very scientific. He is perfectly comfortable with his faith and his science and finds them in delightful harmony, but others on both sides find that a red flag. Surely there are SOME tensions?

Some scientists are worried at having a leader who thinks science has its limits and provides religious explanations for things they believe we’ll eventually be able to explain scientifically. For example, Collins believes that ethics, morality, and conscience come from God, while some scientists are developing and testing theories about how these things evolved. Collins supports the theory/fact of evolution, an old earth, etc. but he doesn’t seem to be absolutely on the science “side,” if indeed science and faith exist in tension.

Forgive me if I’m not doing justice to the issues here. I’m not, as it happens, much of a scientist. When I read the summary of Collins' views, I thought: fair enough, though I said the same when I read the critiques of him. Personally, even if I'm ignorant, I’m thrilled with science and rely on it not only to keep on working but to actually progress (something we don’t see so much in morality, ethics, theology, religion, or human civilization in general, right?) And the best thing about science is that it's supposed to be fearless. You form a theory and try to disprove it. Some say that evolutionists betray this very principle, and I suppose that may sometimes be the case. They're only human (!) I haven't probed the depths of all this or felt the need to do so.

You can read some more coherent writing about this debate here (and I'm sure you could find much more with a quick search).

• Science Is In the Details, Op-Ed piece for the NY Times, by Sam Harris
• Francis Collins: Fit to Head the NIH, debate piece in the LA Times
• Obama to Nominate Prominent Christian Geneticist to Head NIH, Associated Baptist Press
  

I haven’t written back to S. She’s probably wondering if I’m going to. If/when I do, I might try to reassure her: haven’t a huge percentage of the world’s greatest scientific discoveries been made by people of faith? The question of whether being a person of faith is an asset or a liability, in science, is not clear one way or the other, is it?

In America’s – or indeed the world’s – secular humanist subcultures, I can see how religion could seem a handicap. Yet across the whole American population, not to mention the world, S. knows she’s in the minority here. Reflecting on it, I realized that in other subcultures she would be considered the dangerous one. A person with no religion? Sounds unstable. There are quite a few countries where it’s not only socially unacceptable to be an atheist, but even discouraged or sort of prohibited by law. She’d be safe in China, of course, but what about a place like Indonesia, where you have to have your religion printed on your ID card? It’s a multiple choice question too, so you can’t express your conscience (God-given or evolved!) but must choose from the short list.

Surely religious liberty ought to include liberty from religion. Though I suppose everybody has faith and values and a worldview, and I'm not sure how that's so different when you put it all out on the table. Anyway, S. has the right to be an a-theist and to be squeamish about putting her fate in the hands of an evangelical. (We don't have a spotless track record.)

About Collins, apparently some are saying: As long as he keeps religion and science separate and doesn’t abuse his post, we’ll be OK. As long as he’s a good scientist it’s OK if he’s a Christian. But S. is not so sure. Can – or should – people compartmentalize themselves so much? Can someone who is on record as an evangelical Christian and a Creationist (as well as an evolutionist) really be expected or asked or trusted to keep his religion to himself and to be a good scientist? I mean, what kind of evangelical Christian would? (At least, that's the question raised by the editor of "Skeptic" magazine, who says he should know since he was raised one.)

Are Collins' positions syncretistic?