Talk:Francis Collins
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
|
This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. |
This seems to be a bit heavy on opinion and short on references especially the part which says: "Collins is an Evangelical Christian and a theistic evolutionist, which infuriates many atheist biologists who nevertheless acknowledge his scientific expertise".
We at least need to be told these these "many" "atheist biologists" are. "Many" is not just one or two - and the explicit reasons why many scientists consider him to be "infuriating" would be interesting too.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 16:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- Somewhat amusingly I see that the author has replaced the world "many" with the weasel word "some" and then linked to a very-reasoned post here. I see a person who is, at the most, "exasperated" but the "fury" escapes me. I will replace "infuriated" with "exasperated" unless there is good evidence for the alleged "fury" from "many" scientists. :-)--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 17:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- I have also removed "atheistic" biologists. All of science is based on methodological naturalism. Science is, by definition, a religion-free enterprise.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 18:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think "infuriated" is a fair assessment of Jerry Coyne's general view of religious scientists who talk about "other ways of knowing". :) Also, I'd argue calling Coyne and "atheist biologist" is appropriate in this context. Ditto PZ Myers, who also has blogged about Collins. [1].
- So I think my text was reasonable. Also, I didn't write the original.--SpecialFFrog (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- OK. :-) I think that more biologists are "exasperated" with with supernatural explanations than are "infuriated" with them. I think that the scientific method is the best way that humanity has discovered of describing the world that humanity lives in. If you seriously think that any these statements is wrong it is possible that editing RW articles may not be the best use of your time.
- If you feel that this point of view is wrong or needs to be evaluated then the saloon bar is the place to go to complain about my arrogance. (The place has changed a lot since I was a major player and you might be lucky) --Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 18:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- I suspect you are completely misreading my motivations. I think Collins is wrong and the infuriated atheist biologists are right. It may be that more biologists are "exasperated" but I've read a lot of Coyne and Myers and don't think either of them would object to that characterization in this instance. Coyne particularly hates NOMA. --SpecialFFrog (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- If I misunderstood you then I apologise. But I only saw logical reasoning the in the post from the "atheistic biologist" your presented - and in any event there is no such thing as an "atheistic biologist". It would be like suggesting the existence of an "atheistic cook" and assuming that they held certain preconceptions about cookery because they were athiests.
- Clearly a religious kosher cook could exist - but that would be the exception. A simple "cook" like a "biologist" would not be driven by some series of hidden religious beliefs.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 20:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- It said "atheist biologist" rather than "atheistic". "Atheistic" is a stupid word and I would have likely taken it out. However, Coyne and Myers are both atheist biologists in that they are biologists who are atheists and who blog about both topics. Their atheism is irrelevant to their biology work but it is relevant to their blogging and general advocacy. Given that a lot of scientists are disinclined to publicly object to NOMA, I suspect a lot of biologists don't really care about the science-flavoured religious views Collins advocates -- particularly since he seems to do it a lot less in his new post than he did previously. So I'm not sure it's reasonable to say that he exasperates biologists as a whole, particularly with Coyne as the source.
- For now I've just trimmed that bit entirely. If I have a chance it's probably worth pointing out that theistic evolution is largely an attempt to plug God into a gap that will likely exist for some time.--SpecialFFrog (talk) 01:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- I suspect you are completely misreading my motivations. I think Collins is wrong and the infuriated atheist biologists are right. It may be that more biologists are "exasperated" but I've read a lot of Coyne and Myers and don't think either of them would object to that characterization in this instance. Coyne particularly hates NOMA. --SpecialFFrog (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- I have also removed "atheistic" biologists. All of science is based on methodological naturalism. Science is, by definition, a religion-free enterprise.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 18:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)