Comments on Does Coyne Need to Apologize to Eddie?

@Patrick, Sure, Coyne had a right to oppose Collins’ appointment and he had a right to call for Collins’ resignation. Coyne does not have a right to make false statements. He is now claiming that he did not oppose Collins’ appointment, and he is claiming that he did not call for Collins’ resignation. Both statements are false. Coyne needs to apologize for either trying to rewrite his history or for his terrible lapse in memory.

@swamidass, are you asking me to make a bullet point list?

Of course he has a right to can for resignations and of course the rest of the scientific community had the right to ingore him as he does so and we did.

Coyne is not a Government official. He is free to make any statements that he liked.

That is true. You are right. But why does that require an apology? He tried to rewrite history (or had a lapse) and failed. You quoted his own blog back to him, so he clearly isn’t engaged in some cover up.

So what exactly requires an apology? He misrepresented himself, not some one else.

I think you are missing the bigger and more interesting picture. He opposed Collins nomination and failed to prevent it. None of his fears about Collins were realized, and he has even spoken in support of Collins at least one time now. He doesn’t want to be known as the Collins opposer any more. My how times have changed.

@bilbo you won. Be classy in victory. Sore winners are a strange sight to behold.

It also isn’t what happened. Coyne asked for the apology. I suggested that if @eddie couldn’t justify with a quote, he should apologize, quickly, knowing were this would leave.

@eddie to his credit apologized. To his credit. He is looking pretty good out of this. I’m not sure why you @bilbo are trying to spoil this for him.

That is because Collins is playing by the rules by keeping NIH policy neutral on religion. Compare Collins to Pence, DeVos, and Ben Carson to see how bad it has gotten.

2 Likes

The right, sure. But he does not have the right to then keep his job if his proselytizing compromises his performance of that job.

1 Like

Agreed. I don’t see anyone asking Coyne to apologize for that. Rather, I see them asking him to apologize for his mistaken criticism of @Eddie in recent posts here.

1 Like

Oh, you want Jerry Coyne to apologize to some anonymous guy called Eddie? Forgetaboutit.

2 Likes

Except it wasn’t mistaken. @eddie’s paraphrase couldn’t be substantiated.

They want him to apologize (to who?) about misrepresenting his past opposition to Collins.

Before we go there, perhaps @bilbo can demand apologies from West for calling Lenksi a fraud, from Behe for calling @nlents and @art incompetent…(we could go on). I predict the ones @bilbo defends are not going to apologize. And he won’t care.

What he wants from here? I don’t know.

1 Like

How does affirming the resurrection of Jesus in a personal blog and book compromises Collins’ performance as director of the NIH?

3 Likes

Do you think Coyne writing “Faith vs. Fact” similarly constitutes public advocacy of a certain religious viewpoint?

@dga471, if you read Coyne’s quotes it would make more sense. He writes:

Think about this: would a nonbelieving scientist who was as vociferous an atheist as Collins is a Christian have any chance to get the NIH spot? I don’t think so. And a Scientologist who publicly espoused his belief in Xenu and thetans would be considered too much of a lunatic to have responsibility for the NIH . But of course Christianity is a publicly acceptable form of superstition, and Scientology is not.

Coyne doesn’t think an atheist would be allowed. He doesn’t think a scientologist would be allowed. He thinks that Collins was given special privilege because he was a Christian. That is what is so irksome to him. The fact that vociferous atheist like Coyne and Dawkins would be ruled out from the start (this is very likely), but Collins is celebrated for his position…well, doesn’t seem fair to Coyne.

(note @bilbo, he isn’t saying Christianity is equivalent to Scientology; of course, he thinks they are both superstition, that is what atheists think. But Christianity is acceptable and and Scientology isn’t)

That is the issue here. It is worth understanding what Coyne actually wrote first.

1 Like

Yes, certainly. I really enjoyed this book by Coyne. So given Coyne’s book, if Jerry is nominated to be Secretary of Education, HUD Secretary, or County Dog and Cat Administrator, I am 100% sure that Jerry will not favor/disfavor any religion over any other religion or religion over non-religion. And I am certain that Jerry would not let his non-religious beliefs to impact his job performance in his job in a required-to-be-secular government.

https://www.amazon.com/Faith-Versus-Fact-Religion-Incompatible/dp/0143108263

1 Like

I understand this. On the contrary, I don’t think an atheist would be forbidden to become director of the NIH. Elias Zerhouni, Collins’ predecessor, was a Muslim, a minority religion in the US (he is quoted as saying, “My work in medicine and at NIH is profoundly connected to my belief in Islam”) yet nobody had a problem with that. In fact, we see here @Patrick stating that Coyne’s anti-religion public advocacy to not disqualify him from the position either. If I have any qualms about a Scientologist becoming Director of the NIH, that’s more to do with the controversies the religion has been associated with rather than their theological beliefs.

Religious tests to hold office in the United States is not allowed by the US Constitution.

Article VI

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

1 Like

@dga471, I think most Christians do not fully appreciate the extent to which atheists feel like an oppressed minority. I think most atheists do not fully appreciate the extent to which most Christians feel like an oppressed minority.

Until there is more understanding here, there will just be more unrequited demands for apologies. Does it accomplish much more than retrenchment? No. Case in point? @Bilbo seems retrenched. Sore winners. What do you do with them?

2 Likes

I certainly do not fully appreciate why Christians feel like an oppressed minority when they are the majority in the Country at about 71% of the population, and greater than 88% in Congress and of course all Presidents in US History. The oppressed MAJORITY? :sunglasses:

3 Likes

If Jerry were nominated to be Secretary of Education, there would likely be quite a row over his atheism, particularly after is book. If he were nominated to be HUD secretary, I’m guessing there would not be much protest – except perhaps from Jerry himself. If he were nominated for County Dog and Cat Administrators, the dog owners might protest that he has a pro-cat bias.

(Just having a little fun here).

1 Like