Andrew+Week+6

As stated in the New York Times, some see Francis Collins' religious beliefs as a possible conflict with his appointment as the director of the National Institutes of Health. Expressing my likely bias, I myself am a disbeliever and do share these worries. Science and religion do often come in opposition and having a leader of a scientific institution holding outspoken theological beliefs, on the surface, appears to heading for disaster. However this issue is slightly more complex than an initial glance might show. Religion is a personal ideal and belief. The issues created in almost any situation are dependent on just how deeply and interconnected within an individuals mind these feelings are.

Everyone has public and personal sides to life. When religious belief becomes to a person no longer a purely personal, behind closed door, ideal and enters the public domain is usually when problems start to arise with secular science. As an example, quoting Douglas O. Linder's article, William Jennings Bryan's “crusade” against John Scopes' teaching of evolution is probably mainly driven by “...a concern that the teaching of evolution would undermine traditional values he had long supported...” and “Bryan, in the words of columnist H. L. Mencken, who covered the Scopes Trial, transformed himself into a "sort of Fundamentalist Pope." By 1925, Bryan and his followers had succeeded in getting legislation introduced in fifteen states to ban the teaching of evolution. In February, Tennessee enacted a bill introduced by John Butler making it unlawful "to teach any theory that denies the story of divine creation as taught by the Bible and to teach instead that man was descended from a lower order of animals.”” In this situation Bryan's basis for fighting scientific teachings is his religion which he has accepted so deeply as to rate it above logic as fact and so zealously as to willingly bring it into public arena.

So returning to the Collins' debate, the worry over his beliefs is not completely unfounded. I will reverse my position and say however it is not a reason to stereotype. No matter what Collins believes, if he can keep his religion separate, keeping it behind closed doors per say, and not allowing it to interfere and override his secular and scientific pursuits, then it becomes a null point. As I've noted it's only when theology and science go to war, whether in public or within a person, that there can be a problem. Some of Collins' background and statements help ease some of the fear of possible conflicts. Being a member of the Human Genome Project as he was would seemingly take a fairly flexible religious belief and an acceptance of science and biology to be able to do so. Knowing that he climbed into the leadership is even more comforting in that he had to be an advocate of forward scientific progress and be accepted for his beliefs to remain at that level. Had his religion been an issue his fellow researchers would probably not have let him stay in high regard. Quoting Collins' statement in the Times ““I have made it clear that I have no religious agenda for the N.I.H.,” he said, “and I think the vast majority of scientists have been reassured by that and have moved on.”” Just reading the article his demeanor seems to be relaxed toward the issue of his religion. Not in a political manner of trying to play it down as to hide it but in a way that says, at least to me, that it's a bother. That it just annoys him because the issue doesn't really exist and he wants to get on with doing science. In that respect I feel I can personally side with the man. If he really can keep what should be personal personal then grudges aside he can probably do just as well as the less faithful man.