Researchers complain about religious right distortion of their work

Since they distort their own Bible,

why would distorting scientific research be a problem for them?  They ignore huge swaths of their own holy book in favor of other passages it pleases them to support.  Expecting them to do otherwise with any book seems like a vain hope.

The American people, taking one with another, are the most timorous, sniveling, poltroonish, ignominious mob of serfs and goose-steppers ever gathered under one flag in Christendom since the end of the Middle Ages.
-H.L. Mencken

---

by: QScribe @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 11:06:58 AM CDT

Your comment is all win

The distort everything.  Not to mention.. religion and science haven't gotten along very well in history.  They will distort any science to be their brand new, shiny god-science!

jesusistry?  

---

by: flyerfier @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 11:15:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's called "proof texting"

They do not read The Bible or other literature to gain knowledge, insight, or truth.

They "proof text" The Bible and other literature for passages that support their opinions.

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality. -- John F. Kennedy (inspired by Dante's Inferno)

---

by: oldbrit @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 11:59:37 AM CDT

Problem solved: Obama appointed a possible fundie to head the HIH

Once again ensuring his position as our Fierce Advocate in Chief (tm), President Obama appointed Dr. Francis Collins to lead the National Institute of Health Wednesday.

From Rawstory (links to their sources are embedded in the  story, here:  http://rawstory.com/08/news/20... ):

Believes New Testament consists of 'first hand accounts'

The scientist chosen by President Barack Obama to lead the National Institute of Health has a controversial history of mixing politics with faith.

Dr. Francis Collins was a leading pioneer in human genome research and was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President George W. Bush in 2007. He led the government's successful efforts to decode the human genome.

Obama nominated Collins to lead the NIH on Wednesday.

But his history of mixing God and science has left some on the left with a sour taste in their mouth.

The New York Times notes that many object to his "very public embrace of religion."

"He wrote a book called 'The Language of God,' and he has given many talks and interviews in which he described his conversion to Christianity as a 27-year-old medical student," the Times article continues. "Religion and genetic research have long had a fraught relationship, and some in the field complain about what they see as Dr. Collins's evangelism."

Profiled in Bill Maher's acerbic anti-religion documentary, Religulous, Collins asserts that the same level of evidence needed to assert a proof in science isn't necessary for Jesus and the resurrection, and defends his faith using the New Testament as a basis - referring to it as "first hand accounts."

Collins criticized his depiction in the film: "I thought my interview with him was going to be about the so-called controversy between science and faith, and whether someone could both believe in God and evolution. I was willing to discourse on that. But in a rambling discussion, Maher migrated into other territory where I am hardly an expert (like the historicity of the Gospels). As you could see, that was the part he chose to include, though he presented a very limited excerpt."

Collins is also the author of a book that posits that science can provide the foundation for religious belief. The book, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, argues that "God is most certainly not threatened by science; He made it all possible."

"In my view," Collins later writes, "DNA sequence alone, even if accompanied by a vast trove of data on biological function, will never explain certain special human attributes, such as the knowledge of the Moral Law and the universal search for God."

---

by: sarasnavel @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 12:06:30 PM CDT

It's NIH

When I saw that announcement yesterday, I thought that would make an interesting Blend diary.

First, it's just sooo the Obama MO that he would pick an evangelical Christian, but that's no surprise to us here.

But you seem to reject Francis Collins out of hand, an easy mistake to make on a site like this. I think Collins should make a good NIH head.

---

by: Pollyanna @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 13:00:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Far be it from me to defend Obama on religious/gay issues, but...

This guy is not a fundie, at all.  He believes in evolution and rejects intelligent design.  The guy has written some silly books, but the most outrageous thing he said in Religulous was that the Gospels were historical evidence because they were written "within a couple decades" of Christ's life.  You can watch the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...  That's silly, of course, but not at all a fundamentalist viewpoint by a long shot.

If you watch the clip, you'll see that he also goes on to say that disparities between the gospels--inaccuracies in the Bible--would be expected, given how they were written.  That is the exact opposite of the view that defines fundamentalism.

Just as an aside: People really should know better, at this point, than to trust Raw Story's account of anything.  Just seeing them linked, in fact, lessens my opinion of the site sourcing them.  This is a site that told us Rove was going to be indicted on dozens of counts over Plamegate (then wiped the pages from their site,) that we've been set to invade Iran about every three months for the past five years, and that Sanford was hiking naked, not off in Argentina, when he vanished.  Their track record isn't good and it isn't improving.  

---

by: lw @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 15:06:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sorry for the typo and the generalization

It is indeed the "NIH" not "HIH".  Although, "NIN" would have been interesting, too...

I was using "fundie" as shorthand to mean "at least partially irrational follower of the Bible.  I should have used Biblical Literalist.  Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa.  However, he is not the innocent historian he purports to be, either.  He does not see the Bible as just another account of historical events, and he will be making policy decisions at a national level.

As far as Raw Story goes, I wouldn't take anything there at face value either, hence the reference to their links embedded in the story.  I treat it more as a very loose cannon that occasionally returns a good, true story kernel not reported on elsewhere, but you have to do your own homework.  It's not the New York Times..oh, wait.

Finally, Dr. Francis Collins is an odd duck at the very least.  Backing away from Intelligent Design is a no brainer and prudent, but he purports to believe in both evolution and creation, not just the four accounts of Jesus.  He actually goes quite a bit further than stating that evolution is real and it was caused by a god (which in itself is a cop out).  His interviews and publications are all over the map depending on the intended audience.

His take as presented to the media, is that Science is true and not at all in conflict with a belief in an omnipotent god.  My rebuttal is, "then you don't need a god".  He is a crucial part of the wearing away of critical thought and the encroachment of irrational religious beliefs in our society.  Again, incrementalism at work...

---

by: sarasnavel @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 16:11:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"then you don't need a god" is halfway there

His take as presented to the media, is that Science is true and not at all in conflict with a belief in an omnipotent god.  My rebuttal is, "then you don't need a god".

If what you're saying is that science eliminates the need for deities to explain physical phenomena, then you're quite right -- and I suspect that's exactly why some Christians act like science is a bigger threat to their faith than it ought to be.

At the same time, science cannot disprove the existence of God (in general ... though it can disprove some specific hypotheses about Her).  God's existence is not a scientifically-bogus question; it is simply an unscientific question.  God-based explanations of science can be debunked and replaced with actual scientific ones, but science neither asks nor answeres theological questions.

So as a scientist he doesn't need a god, no.  But the idea that science and religion are not incompatible, works for a great many thinking believers.

Some people are better at keeping the two straight than others.  I don't know enough about Dr. Collins to know how good he is as that.  But it's not an inherent contradiction.

(Believing in science and simultaneously believing you can prove God exists -- that you can demonstrate Her existence in such a compelling and objective way that anyone who refuses to accept your argument must be a fool -- is, IMNSHO, a contradiction.)

He is a crucial part of the wearing away of critical thought and the encroachment of irrational religious beliefs in our society.

Whether we believers, by our stubborn existence, contribute to the wearing away of reason, is a thornier question and probably not a can of worms to open on Civility Day.  I'll say this much:  that declaring everyone but atheists and folks whose beliefs are sufficiently fuzzy to pass some "not a threat to reason" threshold would exclude an awful lot of people who can distinguish between their duties as religious people, as scientists, and as public servants, along with the ones who really do let the one get in the way of the other two.

---

by: d'glenn @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 14:53:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hold on, Collins is a good guy

Francis Collins isn't a bad guy. He took the religious right to task for distorting his work. I should have included him in the listing of those complaining about how their work was being distorted:

http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2...

---

by: Alvin McEwen @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 17:19:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

He uses his position as a scientist

to make claims based on human "knowledge of Moral Law".  That makes him intellectually dishonest at best.

---

by: M @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 19:56:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Collins is also a funny guy...

Check out his performance at a University of Michigan commencement.

---

by: Pollyanna @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 13:47:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Getting out of his range of expertise, there...

It always makes my teeth itch when scientists -- including some who do commendable work in the field or fields in which they are trained -- make sweeping moral or philosophical claims and claim their training as a scientist as support.

Sorry, but no.  Studying biology is no more relevant to moral claims than studying ethics and epistemology qualifies me to make claims of expertise regarding genetics.  I had to bite my tongue when one of my physics professors pulled out the decrepit old "first cause" argument (which wouldn't even qualify as Philosophy 101-level logic) as "proof" of the existence of his pet deity, especially when he insisted that his training as an astronomer qualifies him to make that kind of claim.  I may only be an undergrad in this dude's eyes (going back for a second bachelor's...long, irrelevant story), but I've done grad work in the field that he's butchering, and his claims of expertise are no better than Collins'.

Why is it that we seem to let scientists get away with this?  Some philosophers (especially the "analytic" type) often get away with the same sort of thing, but when was the last time that a major media outlet let someone's PhD in English serve as proof of expertise on astronomy?  When has someone with a degree in economics...OK, maybe the media tends to treat those doctrinaire types as modern sage-prophets, but still.  Science is great stuff (which I may happen to be studying), but it's not everything, and it's certainly not the same thing as ethical theory.

---

by: M @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 19:55:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Why should I care about this?

It always makes my teeth itch when scientists -- including some who do commendable work in the field or fields in which they are trained -- make sweeping moral or philosophical claims and claim their training as a scientist as support.

If Collins or anyone else want to try to use what they know in science to try to reinforce their moral or religious systems, that shouldn't bother those who don't believe in those gods or moral systems.

Where we should be concerned is when people do it the other way around - try to use their faith to influence the practice of science. As far as I am aware, Francis Collins does not do this.  Can anyone provide an example where he has, and hence corrupted the process?

I think we should be careful with these careless accusations.  They sound a little like the sort of claptrap that issues from those folks who are positive a gay guy shouldn't have an upper level job in the Department of Education (think of the children!).

---

by: Pollyanna @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 21:07:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's *fake* science, though.

Science cannot make any claims regarding supposedly innate human knowledge of a vague universal "Moral Law" because no evidence-based discipline has suggested that there is such a thing.  Using one's position as a scientist in the public eye to claim that science does make such a claim is a disservice to the public and intellectually dishonest.  It's not applying what is known in science to advance or reinforce one's religious beliefs -- it's a matter of lying about science for the sake of PR for one's sect.

---

by: M @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 23:16:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No, what I was referring to is not even *fake* science,

it is no science at all. Now if you mean some of those asshats with degrees in some totally unrelated field who simply spout creation "science" nonsense, then, yes, fake science.

it's a matter of lying about science for the sake of PR for one's sect.

I ask again, can you provide an example of Collins doing this, or are you just blowing off steam against assorted other creationist types?

---

by: Pollyanna @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 23:38:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Biology is hugely relevant to morality.

Certainly his leap to "therefor there must be a god" is preposterous, logically, but...

Every human feeling or thought processes that we use to define morality is hugely influenced by near-universal biology. Can you name a single human feeling used to define morality that isn't affected by biology?  A single feeling that couldn't be altered, enhanced or obliterated by some sort of drug?  The biological/chemical influences on empathy alone constitute a powerful and, yes, universal link between human biology and morality.  

---

by: lw @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 05:01:22 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Process.

Not processes.  

---

by: lw @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 05:03:07 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

DEFEND

SADLY,

Scientists need to defend their work.
Doctors need to defend their work.
Historians need to defend their work.

True CHRISTIANS need to defend their Christ.

There's been a WHOLE LOTTA defamation going on due to the tyranny of America's most successful hate group - the Religious Reich.

Decades more of abuse? - OR - Stonewall.  Nationwide.  NOW!

---

by: John Bisceglia @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 12:38:48 PM CDT

Sad

Maybe if Perez Hilton put it on his page, then perhaps The Advocate would devote a cover story to the subject

This says even more about what the Advocate has become than Truth Wins Out is saying about Fraud on the Family is and always has been.

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 12:44:30 PM CDT

Aren't Medical Professional's Published Works legally protected?

If they are being misrepresented and distorted by organizations for monetary gain, wouldn't they have ground to sue for damages?

---

by: johnson @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 14:28:15 PM CDT

Iffy at best

Unless they're quoting large portions of the reports verbatim (which is unlikely, given their intention to "misinterpret" them), there wouldn't be any grounds for a copyright infringement prosecution.  It's not a crime to "misunderstand" a book or monograph, and there's no way to prove that the "misunderstanding" is deliberate.

Also, since the AFA et al are technically "nonprofits," alleging that they've done this for monetary gain would be an uphill fight, at best.

The American people, taking one with another, are the most timorous, sniveling, poltroonish, ignominious mob of serfs and goose-steppers ever gathered under one flag in Christendom since the end of the Middle Ages.
-H.L. Mencken

---

by: QScribe @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 16:52:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

For those old enough to remember...

Back during the Reagan Regency, ol' Raunchy Ronnie's Attorney General Ed Meese assembled a panel to "investigate" pornography.

Using the tactics of the reicht, they twisted the facts to fit the conclusion they had already self-righteously made.

The commission was criticized for being loaded with anti-porn crusaders, and was slammed by the legitimate press.

Listen to "TransTalk" every Thursday at 4-5pm ET on http://www.falconradio.org

---

by: Marlene @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 06:59:10 AM CDT