Does Religion Matter?
Francis Collins is the director of the National Institutes of Health. Collins has been controversial among scientists because he has held this position while also being an outspoken believer in te literal truth of the Christian Bible and, apparently, a fervent supporter of the concept of translational medicine.
While Collins has general respect as a scientist, his writings and speeches about his religious faith make the scientific community uneasy. While no one believes that Dr. Collins is a creationist or an opponent of evolution, he sees himself as having a moral agenda that may well differ from that of most people in the scientific community.
Why this Scientist believes in God! – Francis Collins from anberlin_fan on GodTube.
Collins’ religious beliefs are in conflict with his role as a leader in science. Rather than being driven to the Roman Catholic Church by a simple love for mystery or by a CP Snow-like philosopher’s admiration for the story of a God who sacrifices Himself to show love for His creation, Collins makes the literal argument that God exists in the specific form of Jesus because that is the only explanation available for humanity’s need for a moral order. Collins as a religious philosopher is superficial, but his assertion that a process of discovery led him to accept the Jesus story is in obvious conflict with the objectivity that science demands.
The most difficult part of this contradictory agenda, may be Collins’ credibility as Director of the NIH. I am especially concerned about his support for the concept of “translational medicine”. This concept, supported by large numbers of politicians from both parties, holds that the purpose of science may be basic discovery but that the intent of Congress is clinical. The result is a great increase in funding that one might expect should come from drug companies, healthcare organizations, or other programs in the government specifically devoted to healthcare. In a time of severe decreases in funding for the NIH there is a very real perception that this means basic science is not being done. Nor is there any evidence that spending money this way advances the goals of the NIH rather than extracting more money from Congress.
The problem created for Collins’ credibility, is obvious. Does he support translational medicine because something, perhaps his religion, drives him that way or because he has objective evidence that this diversion of funds will produce better science. Or is he a hypocrite? Does he support translational medicine just to get more funds for his agency?