Did Coyne Oppose Collins as NIH Director?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Eddie

If after research I find that anything I said was either false or materially misleading, I will retract all such statements. Give me some time.

That is all we can ask of you. The sooner the better though.

@Eddie

Because of the constant post-splitting here, I often cannot find the thread where I have made remarks.

@Eddie

I don’t recall saying that Coyne called for Collins’s resignation. Did I say that? Did Patrick say that?

You can find your comment here: Scientists Are Not Anti-Creation - #37 by Eddie. I’ve heard you say similar things all the time, about Coyne in particular. The whole point of the prior thread is that you really got secular scientists wrong. They are not intolerant in the way you think. In fact, they are very tolerant of religious belief, as long as you play by the rules: The Rules of the Game.

@Eddie

I don’t recall saying that Coyne called for Collins’s resignation. Did I say that? Did Patrick say that?

You wrote, as Patrick quoted it,

@Eddie

You’re saying the TE leaders should never have feared the reproach of the secular scientists. Well, tell that to Francis Collins, whose appointment to the NIH was originally opposed, or loudly groused about, by Jerry Coyne. Coyne said that no one who could believe a man rose from the dead should be the head of a publicly funded scientific organization. (I paraphrase.) So the attitude that Christian scientists are smart when they do good science, but dumb when they affirm miracles, is out there, whether you care to admit it or not.

Coyne, to my knowledge, has not called Collins “dumb,” nor has he said Collins should not be head of the NIH. That is what he is objecting to here, and you certainly said it.

@Jerry_Coyne, himself, has provided his current assessment (Collins was deluded, not dumb) about it and linked to his prior post. The issue for Coyne has been about the potential for misusing his secular position in the government to promote religion. The concerns were about maintaining science and government as secular efforts. I also endorse those concerns.

This is how Patrick and I explained it before, in a different context:

@swamidass

A few years ago (during the Obama Administration) Biologos started touting that Dr. Francis Collins, Director of the National Institute of Health and Founder of Biologos was going to be keynote speaker at their upcoming “Christ in Creation” Conference. Further attendance was not open to the public and required a fee (and Biologos permission) to attend or watch the video feed.

I passed this to the Constitutional Attorneys at the Freedom From Religion Foundation and they sent a strong letter to the NIH Director with copies to Congressional Watchdogs in both the House and Senate. The FFRF letter stated the illegality and unconstitutionality of the NIH Director speaking at a religious creationist conference.

Dr. Collins, to his credit, took heed to this letter , and Biologos ceased advertising his attendance. Dr. Collins, again to his credit , threaded the line very adeptly . He very quietly, on his own funds (not Biologos nor Government) popped in on one of the evenings of the conference, and didn’t speak formally but instead played his guitar with other Biologos staff members.

The headline here might be “Atheists attacks Collins”, but what is here is something different. @patrick has no problem with Collin’s position and participation, as long as the lines are clear.

You do not have to agree with Coyne. I, for one, do not agree Collins is deluded. It is important, nonetheless, to understand what is really going on here. Too often the real concerns of secular scientists are missed. Much unneeded conflict ensues, and many opportunities for peace are missed.