WEST CONSHOHOCKEN, PA — Geneticist and physician Francis Collins, Director of the National Institutes of Health, who led the Human Genome Project to its successful completion in 2003 and throughout his career has advocated for the integration of faith and reason, was announced today as the 2020 Templeton Prize Laureate.

In his scientific leadership, public speaking, and popular writing, including his bestselling 2006 book, The Language of God, Collins has demonstrated how religious faith can motivate and inspire rigorous scientific research. “This book argues that belief in God can be an entirely rational choice,” he writes in the introduction, “and that the principles of faith are, in fact, complementary with the principles of science.” In the book, he endeavors to encourage religious communities to embrace the latest discoveries of genetics and the biomedical sciences as insights to enrich and enlarge their faith.

Collins, 70, was selected as the 2020 Laureate by the Prize judges late last year, but the announcement was delayed due to the coronavirus pandemic.

From 1993 to 2008, Collins directed the National Human Genome Research Institute, guiding the Human Genome Project in its mapping and sequencing of the three billion DNA letters that make up the human genetic instruction book.

Before joining the NIH, Collins served as professor of internal medicine and human genetics at the University of Michigan, where he was known as the “gene hunter” for his pioneering technique of “positional cloning” to pinpoint disease-related genes. His research groups have been responsible for the discovery of the genes responsible for cystic fibrosis, neurofibromatosis, Huntington’s disease, and Hutchinson-Guilford progeria syndrome, a rare form of premature aging.

These and other genetic breakthroughs have helped launch a new era of precision medicine in which researchers and providers can customize treatment programs for individual patients, and have shed new light on human well-being and the nature and possibilities of the human species.

The announcement was made online at TempletonPrize.org today by the Templeton philanthropies: the John Templeton Foundation, based in West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, and by the Templeton World Charity Foundation and Templeton Religion Trust, based in Nassau, The Bahamas.

The Templeton Prize, valued at 1.1 million British pounds, is one of the world’s largest annual individual awards, and honors individuals whose exemplary achievements advance Sir John Templeton’s philanthropic vision: harnessing the power of the sciences to explore the deepest questions of the universe and humankind’s place and purpose within it. 

In a statement prepared for the announcement, at Templetonprize.org, Dr. Collins said: “As I write this, almost my every waking moment is consumed by the effort to find treatments and a vaccine for COVID-19. The elegant complexity of human biology constantly creates in me a sense of awe. Yet I grieve at the suffering and death I see all around, and at times I confess I am assailed by doubts about how a loving God would permit such tragedies. But then I remember that the God who hung on the cross is intimately familiar with suffering. I learn and re-learn that God never promised freedom from suffering – but rather to be “our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble” (Psalm 46).”

Heather Templeton Dill, president of the John Templeton Foundation, in a prepared statement at Templetonprize.org, said: “In his role as a scientist, government official, and public intellectual, Francis Collins has used his platform to engage groups of diverse perspectives, and encouraged greater curiosity, open-mindedness, and humility among scientists and religious believers with the aim of illuminating a pathway toward, as he has written, ‘a sober and intellectually honest integration’ of the scientific and spiritual perspectives. Dr. Collins embodies the ideals and core convictions that inspired my grandfather, Sir John Templeton, to establish the Templeton Prize in 1972: that rigorous research, especially in the sciences, can help humanity confront the deepest and most challenging questions of existence.”

Templeton, the investor and philanthropist who died in 2008, created the Templeton Prize because he wanted to recognize discoveries that yielded new insights about religion especially through science, and he set the award amount above that of the Nobel Prizes in order to recognize the importance of what he called “progress in religion.”

His understanding of progress in religion evolved during his lifetime and is shown in the variety among the 50 Laureates who have received the Prize. Winners have come from all major faiths and dozens of countries and have included Nobel Prize winners, philosophers, theoretical physicists, and one canonized saint. For the first few decades of the Prize, HRH Prince Philip presented the award, and distinguished leaders such as Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Presidents George H.W. Bush and Gerald Ford served as judges.

This year, the Templeton philanthropies updated the description of the Prize, focusing it on research, discovery, public engagement, and religious leadership that advance understanding of and appreciation for the insights of science.

Francis Sellers Collins, M.D., Ph.D., was born in Staunton, Virginia, to parents who sought to raise him in an idealized agrarian lifestyle, homeschooling him until he was 10 on a farm in the Shenandoah Valley. He received a Bachelor of Science in chemistry from the University of Virginia and a Ph.D. in physical chemistry from Yale. A biochemistry course, however, opened his eyes to the revolutionary possibilities emerging in the field, and led him to shift his career path and enroll in medical school at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

In his youth, Collins wrestled with issues of religion, veering from comfortable agnosticism to unapologetic atheism. But while a third-year medical student serving his residency, he was struck by the power of faith professed by his patients, many of whom faced imminent death. Unable to articulate his own belief, a neighbor, a Methodist minister, introduced him to the writings of C.S. Lewis, the legendary Oxford scholar who himself had tested the tenets of faith through the lens of logic before embracing Christianity. Collins’s journey to Christian belief would evolve and strengthen over the next three decades.

After serving his residency and earning an M.D., Collins was named a Fellow in Human Genetics at Yale Medical School under the direction of Sherman Weissman, who still serves as the school’s Sterling Professor of Genetics. In Weissman’s lab, Collins developed the technique of “chromosome jumping”, allowing the cloning of an entire genetic strand by skipping over lengthy, perhaps unsearchable parts of the strand without going through the sequence gene by gene in order to read the entire strand.

After nine years at the University of Michigan where he became the school’s Howard Hughes Medical Institute Investigator, he was appointed director of the National Center for Human Genome Research in 1993. There he was responsible for the Human Genome Project, an international consortium which remains the largest biological collaboration project in history. He resigned his position in 2008 but continued to lead an active laboratory focused on progeria and type 2 diabetes.

The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Collins’s first book for a general audience, was published in 2006. In it, he recounts his journey from agnosticism to atheism to Christian belief, explaining why science does not conflict with the Bible, and outlining how modern science and robust personal faith can reinforce each other. Collins has said he was astounded by the response to the book – it was a New York Times bestseller for 16 weeks and has been translated into 24 languages.

In response to that overwhelming interest, and seeing the need to create a platform for further dialogue about science and religion, Collins and his wife, Diane Baker, founded the non-profit BioLogos Foundation in 2007, to foster discussion about harmony between science and biblical faith. The organization publishes articles and podcasts from scientists who are also Christians and promotes the view that an evolutionary creation position is correct and compatible with Christianity.

In 2009, newly-inaugurated President Barack Obama nominated Collins as the 16^thdirector of the National Institutes of Health.  He received unanimous Senate confirmation, and was reappointed to the position by President Donald Trump in 2017.  He is the longest-serving director in the agency’s history.

Collins has written three other books aimed at a general audience: The Language of Life: DNA and the Revolution in Personalized Medicine and Belief: Readings on the Reasons for Faith, both in 2010, and The Language of Science and Faith: Straight Answers to Genuine Questions, in 2011.

Among the many initiatives launched under Collins’s direction at NIH are “BRAIN: Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies,” to develop tools to examine the brain’s cells and circuits; “Sound Health: Music and the Mind,” examining how music can have health and wellness applications; and “HEAL: Helping to End Addiction Long Term,” in response to the national opioid crisis.

In early 2020, Collins and his NIH colleagues shifted major parts of their attention and resources to accelerating treatments and a vaccine for the novel coronavirus causing a global pandemic.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Collins has urged faith communities to trust science while debunking various internet conspiracies, to link inevitable bad news to opportunities for hope, and to remain strong in their faith. In a recent Washington Post interview, he referenced a favorite verse from Joshua 1:9: “Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid. Do not be discouraged, for the Lord your God will be with you wherever you go.”

“That encourages me,” said Collins, “and faith leaders can spread that kind of exaltation around in a way that I think will encourage others.”

Collins and his wife, Diane Baker, a founding faculty member and director of the genetic counseling program at the University of Michigan, live in Chevy Chase, Maryland.

Collins joins a list of 50 Prize recipients including Mother Teresa (the inaugural award in 1973), the Dalai Lama (2012), and Archbishop Desmond Tutu (2013). Last year’s Templeton Prize went to theoretical physicist Marcelo Gleiser for his writings that present science, philosophy, and spirituality as complementary expressions of humanity’s need to embrace mystery and the unknown.  The 2018 Laureate was His Majesty King Abdullah II of Jordan for his efforts to promote peace-affirming Islam and to seek religious harmony within Islam and between Islam and other religions. Other scientists who have won the Prize include Martin Rees (2011), John Barrow (2006), George Ellis (2004), the late Freeman Dyson (2000), and Paul Davies (1995).

Francis Collins will formally receive the Templeton Prize in a virtual ceremony later this year.      https://www.templetonprize.org/laureate-sub/francis-collins-awarded-2020-templeton-prize/

Well done sir!

Voted up!

Thanks!  I’m glad that you liked it.  

I would presume you respect Dr. Collins.   If so, I would agree since he is an honorable and eminently qualified scientist as well as a devout Christian.

Your respect for him as a scientist is far greater than that of Dave Van Zandt and MBFC which regards his organization to be pseudoscience.  I do respect him and understand what he’s trying to do.  You must agree that his is a rational faith.

Do you understand that Dr. Collins was one of the leading researchers of evolutionary science (in particular genetics)?

You deem evolution to be pseudoscience — a worldwide conspiracy by godless scientists.

Do you consider Dr. Collins to be a pseudoscientist and godless?    Do you think his work is a conspiracy? 

Any of this give you pause?

Your respect for him as a scientist is far greater than that of Dave Van Zandt and MBFC which regards his organization to be pseudoscience.

BioLogos is not pseudoscience.   I have recommended the website to Christians for years.   BioLogos attempts to explain science coexisting with Christian beliefs without violating science — unlike individuals like Ken Ham who actively seek to discredit scientific findings that go against their religious beliefs.

How Evolution Works, Part 1 - Resources - BioLogos

How Evolution Works, Part 2 - Resources - BioLogos

What is Genetics? - Resources - BioLogos

Now you have an idea why I hold MBFC in such sheer and utter contempt....

CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE

I know that there are Christians who believe in a God guided evolutionary creation.  I disagree but don’t see it as an issue that is a salvation affecting issue or difference.  That they give Him the credit for it and ascribe to Him the authority over it and the universe is good.  

Now you have an idea why I hold MBFC in such sheer and utter contempt....

Although I disagree with their overall analysis, I can see why they would rate BioLogos as such.   It is not because the science is bad (because it is quite accurate science).   Rather it is because of the religious explanations of the actual science.   The religious part is clearly NOT science.

I suspect because BioLogos is not strictly science they deem it pseudoscience.  

The key point, however, is unlike sites like Answers In Genesis which distort and reject science, BioLogos entirely embraces science and then goes on to say (in effect):

Given this is our best understanding of how nature works, here is how we see Christian beliefs working (without contradiction) with that science.   So, for example, they fully embrace evolution but view it as God's method for speciation.   They never claim that science has found the hand of God or even a tiny hint of a divine signature.   They state the science and then, on top of that, apply their beliefs.

You, however, claim with certainty that the (highly corroborated by mountains of evidence) work of brilliant men such as Dr. Collins is pseudoscience and a conspiracy.   You do not simply express that you are not convinced the findings of these scientists is correct, you flat out state that their findings are wrong and that the scientists are purposely lying to the world due to a lack of religious faith.

Can you not see the blatant contradiction staring you in the face?

But the mere fact that they attribute evolution to God makes their site on that basis alone banned as a seeding source here because according to MBFC there can be no place for God anywhere in science..

Is this seed about NT meta or about Dr. Collins?

It’s about a great award going to a good Christian man who abandoned agnosticism and atheism for reality 

He is grounded in the empirical reality of evolution and (on top of that) hold beliefs that are not based on facts but rather feelings and hope.  He has found a way to hold to his religious beliefs without distorting science.

You, however, claim with certainty that the (highly corroborated by mountains of evidence) work of brilliant men such as Dr. Collins is pseudoscience and a conspiracy.   You do not simply express that you are not convinced the findings of these scientists is correct, you flat out state that their findings are wrong and that the scientists are purposely lying to the world due to a lack of religious faith.

The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Collins’s first book for a general audience, was published in 2006. In it, he recounts his journey from agnosticism to atheism to Christian belief, explaining why science does not conflict with the Bible, and outlining how modern science and robust personal faith can reinforce each other. Collins has said he was astounded by the response to the book – it was a New York Times bestseller for 16 weeks and has been translated into 24 languages.

In response to that overwhelming interest, and seeing the need to create a platform for further dialogue about science and religion, Collins and his wife, Diane Baker, founded the non-profit BioLogos Foundation in 2007, to foster discussion about harmony between science and biblical faith. The organization publishes articles and podcasts from scientists who are also Christians and promotes the view that an evolutionary creation position is correct and compatible with Christianity.

In 2009, newly-inaugurated President Barack Obama nominated Collins as the 16^thdirector of the National Institutes of Health.  He received unanimous Senate confirmation, and was reappointed to the position by President Donald Trump in 2017.  He is the longest-serving director in the agency’s history.

Collins has written three other books aimed at a general audience: The Language of Life: DNA and the Revolution in Personalized Medicine and Belief: Readings on the Reasons for Faith, both in 2010, and The Language of Science and Faith: Straight Answers to Genuine Questions, in 2011.

.

https://thenewstalkers.com/vic-eldred/group_discuss/8489/nih-director-wins-templeton-prize-for-recognizing-science-religion?g=85#cm1317791

Contradiction outlined @2.1.6 was deflected.   Your reply is non-sequitur.   Not only is it simply the words of another, it offers no rebuttal, makes no argument, simply cites uncontested facts.   It does not even acknowledge the content of post @2.1.6.

Your C&P'd bio of Dr. Collins was a nonresponse.

Another nonresponse.

So is Dr. Collins belief in the Christian God of the Bible a rational faith or is he devoid of logic and rational thought because of his crediting everything to God?

Do you feel betrayed by his abandoning being agnostic and then trading the religion of atheism in favor of reality?  

His belief in the Bible is faith-based, it is not based on facts or even on evidence.   It is pure faith.    I cannot explain how his mind works and I certainly do not see this as rational.   Somehow he can hold this faith without denying science so I am not concerned.

You, however, refuse to face up to the fact that you deem evolution pseudoscience and deem scientists such as Dr. Collins to be part of a worldwide conspiracy where they are lying to people.

It is fascinating to observe your refusal to even acknowledge your blatant contradiction.  

Atheism isn't a religion, and so long as he understands science, why would I care what religion he follows?

Now, would you care to discuss using your own words, rather than either copying and pasting, or putting words into others' mouths?

a rational faith

No such thing.

is he devoid of logic and rational thought because of his crediting everything to God?

It's the belief itself that is irrational. But at least he is able to largely separate his belief from science. 

 the religion of atheism

Explain how atheism is a religion exactly!

in favor of reality?  

Where's the reality of religion or belief? That seems more like a rejection of reality.

BioLogos is not pseudoscience.    I have recommended the website to Christians for years.   BioLogos attempts to explain science coexisting with Christian beliefs without violating science — unlike individuals like Ken Ham who actively seek to discredit scientific findings that go against their religious beliefs.

I agree, but Heartland American is absolutely correct when he states that MBFC says it IS pseudoscience and very high on the "conspiracy theory" scale as well.  See HERE - mediabiasfactcheck.   As such, I think he has good reason to be skeptical of MBFC, and he is correct that because of that rating, posting information from that organization may not be allowed here.

So I assume you both agree that scientists like Francis Collins and his BioLogos organization can be a bridge upon which to build consensus and science based agreement between those of religious faith and the more secular scientific community?  I think Dr. Collins and many like him are living proof that religion and science can coexist and that they need not be considered opposite ends of hotly contested spectrum.  That has been my take for many years as well.

TiG in 2.1.1 above you said to HA:

You deem evolution to be pseudoscience — a worldwide conspiracy by godless scientists . Do you consider Dr. Collins to be a pseudoscientist and godless?    Do you think his work is a conspiracy? 

Forgive me but I fail to see where Heartland said anything of the sort, at least not in this article.  Perhaps he has said that elsewhere in discussions with you, but the very fact that he posted a link to the TempletonPrize.org article in comment 1 above indicates to me that those may not necessarily be the positions he holds.  I have not been able to read all the comments here so I could be wrong.  

but Heartland American is absolutely correct when he states that MBFC says it IS pseudoscience

Rather than go off on a tangent, I asked HA if this seed is about MBFC and NT meta or is it about Dr. Collins.   Seems to me this is not a seed to discuss the ratings of organizations or the inclusion of articles within NT.

Perhaps he has said that elsewhere in discussions with you, but the very fact that he posted a link to the TempletonPrize.org article in comment 1 above indicates to me that those may not necessarily be the positions he holds. 

For a while it was a mantra of his here on NT;  one of several which denies science when it conflicts with his religious beliefs.   You should ask HA if he holds that evolution is pseudoscience — a worldwide conspiracy by godless scientists.   At this point one would think he would come to terms with that view.   Ultimately, if he holds true to that ('stands by it') then he is deeming Dr. Collins' life work to be pseudoscience and that Dr. Collins is part of a conspiracy.

What you have been witnessing is the blatant contradiction.   What you can expect is further deflection.   What I have been doing is holding a mirror up so that HA can see that he does indeed have a nose and there is no use denying it. 

I think Dr. Collins and many like him are living proof that religion and science can coexist and that they need not be considered opposite ends of hotly contested spectrum. 

Science and religion does coexist in many people.   I have lived my life surrounded by Christians (mostly).   Most (high 9x%) in my circle do not deny science when it conflicts with their religious teachings.   They reconcile in various ways, but they do not just shake their heads and make proclamations such as:  evolution is pseudoscience.

Contradiction outlined @2.1.6 was deflected.   Your reply is non-sequitur.   Not only is it simply the words of another, it offers no rebuttal, makes no argument, simply cites uncontested facts.   It does not even acknowledge the content of post @2.1.6.

Again TiG, you are the one who has repeatedly posed the "contradiction" by pre-supposing HA's stance on this despite his repeated posting of Dr. Collin's position/explanation on how he reconciles religion with science.  I can only assume that he keeps posting Dr. Collins words because he agrees with Dr. Collins and feels the same way (i.e. perhaps no reason to put it in his own words).  But you are correct.  Let's ask HA.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Heartland American

1.   Did you link to and repeat the various sources about Dr. Collins because you agree with Dr. Collins way of reconciling his religious beliefs with his dedication to science as well?  Yes or no? 

2.   Or is your position as extreme as TiG has been repeating here, that you believe "evolution to be pseudoscience — a worldwide conspiracy by godless scientists"? Yes or no?

Perhaps your succinct answers to the questions above will put an end to the argument that there is a contradiction here.

Again TiG, you are the one who has repeatedly posed the "contradiction" by pre-supposing HA's stance on this despite his repeated posting of Dr. Collin's position/explanation on how he reconciles religion with science.

I have not presupposed anything.   I am stating fact.   HA has claimed evolution to be pseudoscience for years here on NT and has stated my 'conspiracy' paraphrase multiple times.

Let's ask HA.

Indeed.

I am stating fact.   HA has claimed evolution to be pseudoscience for years here on NT and has stated my 'conspiracy' paraphrase multiple times.

Sorry TiG, did not mean to doubt you on this, I just haven't seen that and he certainly hasn't said that in this article.  If that is the case, perhaps he has changed his mind given his apparent agreement with Dr. Collins on this article.  Let's see how he responds.

Gotta agree with Tig. I have read him saying he didn't believe in evolution and basically saying some grand design.

Maybe he will answer. If he has changed his stance it would be news to me.

in this article

He has said so multiple times in the past.

Basically, he's painted himself into a corner here.  That tends to happen when one posts articles without reading them, or without reading them closely enough to understand them.

Here is a recent one that I bookmarked:

HA @4.2.10 ☞ Evolution as so-called scientific fact is the greatest con job ever perpetrated 

Look at Freefaller's comment down @ 4.2.15 for further third party evidence that this is a common claim by HA.

Here is another one.

HA @ 2.2.41 ☞ Answers in Genesis and the Creation Research Institute are real genuine science practiced by real scientists.  Evolution is pure pseudoscience quackery. 

HA comments like these are replete on this site.

Let's see how he responds.

Indeed.   Responding is exactly what I have been asking him to do.  I think it would be a good thing for HA to face this contradiction and use his critical thinking faculties to come to a sensible conclusion.

Is Dr. Collins wrong in his understanding of evolution and thus supporting a worldwide conspiracy?   

Or is evolution indeed well-founded science and that one should rethink how one interprets the Bible in this regard?

I already told him that I’m aware of Christians who believe in a God directed evolution as his form of creation.  I told him that while there are things I disagree with biologists about and with complete young earth creationists about but since both ultimately attributed it to God as the author of it, that it was not an issue of the magnitude of separating one from salvation so there is room for both and everything in between. 

I already told him that I’m aware of Christians who believe in a God directed evolution as his form of creation.

You being aware of other's beliefs is not in question.

I told him that while there are things I disagree with biologists about and with complete young earth creationists about but since both ultimately attributed it to God as the author of it, that it was not an issue of the magnitude of separating one from salvation so there is room for both and everything in between. 

Non sequitur.   see TiG@2.1.28

... and ...

Is Dr. Collins wrong in his understanding of evolution and thus supporting a worldwide conspiracy?   

Or is evolution indeed well-founded science and that one should rethink how one interprets the Bible in this regard?

I only called evolution pseudoscience because of the narrow minded intolerant bigotry of the pro science position as defined by MBFC. And the fact that since we started using those hate filled bigots as a contempt control device to silence other points of view.  I don’t consider creation or intelligent design or evolution to be pseudoscience but all reasonable attempts to explain origins as long as one side doesn’t resort to tools of censorship and content control to limit or shame other viewpoints.  The so called pro science on issues like origins, Angels, The flood and global warming/climate control has polarized me and I’ve made every effort to find alternative sources to end run the pro science bigots and get what I believe out there.  Also the anti religion people here have said that faith is not a rational belief, and that the God of the Bible was impossible and that the Bible can’t be what we say it is.  They use reason and logic as weapons against belief.  

so there is room for both and everything in between

So is that a YES to question # 1 and a NO to question #2 in my post at 2.1.23?

1.   Did you link to and repeat the various sources about Dr. Collins because you agree with Dr. Collins way of reconciling his religious beliefs with his dedication to science as well?  Yes or no? 

2.   Or is your position as extreme as TiG has been repeating here, that you believe "evolution to be pseudoscience — a worldwide conspiracy by godless scientists"? Yes or no?

I ask because your conclusion that "there is room for both and everything in between" would be supported by agreement with Dr. Collin's approach, but not so much by the approach outlined in question number 2.

I believe in life after love.

Haha   Sorry, I just don't think you will get a straight answer.

Oh yeah, I hope you didn't take my comment as being snaky towards you. I read it back and it kind of came off that way. Was not my intent.

I don’t consider creation or intelligent design or evolution to be pseudoscience but all reasonable attempts to explain origins as long as one side doesn’t resort to tools of censorship and content control to limit or shame other viewpoints.  

Even though this sentence is full of logical and factual problems, I am going to bookmark it for the part I have colored blue.

I only called evolution pseudoscience because of the narrow minded intolerant bigotry of the pro science position as defined by MBFC.

Job well done, Dr. Collins, you have unbeknown to you put an end to the evolution is pseudoscience — a worldwide conspiracy by godless scientists proclamation and the many paraphrases of same.  HA did not really mean that every time he wrote it, he was just angry.

I don’t consider creation or intelligent design or evolution to be pseudoscience but all reasonable attempts to explain origins as long as one side doesn’t resort to tools of censorship and content control to limit or shame other viewpoints.

Sorry HA - Looks like our last two posts crossed in the mail.  I get where you are coming from on this, and I am glad to see that you have softened your approach on evolution and agree that both science and religious belief are attempts to explain or rationalize our origins, and perhaps even the meaning of our lives.  But perhaps there is no need to look at it as though other opinions are necessarily meant to "shame" your viewpoints or beliefs.  Think of them merely as challenges from those who perhaps do not share your beliefs for a variety of reasons, other opinions based on a different thought process, because that really is all they are. 

In the seeded article the president of the John Templeton Foundation says:

“In his role as a scientist, government official, and public intellectual, Francis Collins has used his platform to engage groups of diverse perspectives, and encouraged greater curiosity, open-mindedness, and humility among scientists and religious believers with the aim of illuminating a pathway toward, as he has written, ‘a sober and intellectually honest integration’ of the scientific and spiritual perspectives. Dr. Collins embodies the ideals and core convictions that inspired my grandfather, Sir John Templeton, to establish the Templeton Prize in 1972: that rigorous research, especially in the sciences, can help humanity confront the deepest and most challenging questions of existence.”

For me (particularly the part I emphasized), this is the approach I have embraced for many years.  And for the most part I think that at least some of the folks here whom you might see as "pro-science bigots" might actually agree with us on this approach.  For example, TiG has already said that he does not think that BioLogos is pseudoscience.

I think that if we stop thinking of each other as the enemy or "hate-filled bigots", we will find that there is room for common ground and thinking more along the lines of Dr. Colllns.  Do you agree with this?

I hope you didn't take my comment as being snaky towards you.

Nah!  Never.  

I think I got a fairly good answer.

Better take a look at that link one more time.

MBFC says it IS pseudoscience and very high on the "conspiracy theory" scale as well.

Biologos is rated "Mild" for both Pseudoscience and conspiracy.

I read that as a zero for conspiracy theory.

The explanation for the pseudoscience is logical if MBFC treats everyone the same.

Overall, we rate the Biologos Foundation a mild pseudoscience website based on ascribing evolution to the hand and workings of God, which is not known or provable.

For example, TiG has already said that he does not think that BioLogos is pseudoscience.

I have recommended BioLogos to Christians since the days of NV.   I was the first person to introduce (with admiration) Dr. Francis Collins here on NT.   BioLogos explains science without compromise.   They then wrap their religious interpretations around that.   In this way they do not contradict science while preserving their religious beliefs.

If one must hold to religious view then I recommend this approach.   If one believes that there is a god then discover this creator through its creations.   Science is the best method we have for doing that.   And, conveniently, it is contemporary and has a proven track record for largely being correct.   But science cannot answer all questions so for those questions that remain outstanding (e.g. what is the purpose of our lives?) one can always turn to soft philosophy (i.e. religion) for notions to consider.

And, as I explained to HA, that rating no doubt is simply due to the fact that BioLogos speaks of science and religion.   If MBFC were to evaluate just the science dimension of the site they would (should) give a ZERO pseudoscience rating.   Scientifically, the site is quite sound.

I think that if we stop thinking of each other as the enemy or "hate-filled bigots", we will find that there is room for common ground and thinking more along the lines of Dr. Colllns.  Do you agree with this?

I do, but after, what 11 years(?) of this, I am not hopeful. 

Sometimes what you see every darn day is all you're ever going to get.

I think that if we stop thinking of each other as the enemy or "hate-filled bigots"

Speaking for myself, if I were to consider Christians as hate-filled bigots or some other equally nasty stereotype then I would have harsh feeling for almost everyone in my circle of family and friends.

Funny how some presume that challenging religious claims of certainty means that one harbors ill-feelings for people with religious views.   If I were to have ill-feelings for someone it would be based on intellectual dishonesty and malicious intent;  not because the individual believes the words of ancient men.

Ah crap!  I read it backwards and failed to read the written part below!  Thanks SP!  Too many interruptions here!

That you think so means very little to me.  I know the point I was building to. 

I know the point I was building to. 

Does not matter.   What matters is the acknowledgement from you that evolution is solid science and the recognition that scientists such as Dr. Collins are not part of a worldwide conspiracy to push a pseudoscience called 'evolution'.

I would if places that advocate what I believe in weren’t singled out for content control or outright censorship and not allowed because of the bigotry of a couple of people at a certain place who have no qualifications to do so or any scientific method to their madness.  I really don’t care what anyone else believes or expresses here about politics, religion, science, climate, or whatever as long as I can freely express what I do on those issues and use the sources I want to back them up.  

So the bottom line is that despite the amount of science used at his site the mere fact that they credit any of it to God was the sole reason that they were rated conspiracy/pseudoscience.  That makes them the definition of intolerant bigotry. They enforce that there is NO place whatsoever for God in science

Once again, if one grades a site AS A WHOLE in terms of science, then because BioLogos speaks of both science AND religion they will take a hit.   Religion is not science.   Intelligent Design is the exemplar of religion pretending to be science.

But if one evaluates ONLY the scientific claims of BioLogos then I submit they would be excellent.

BioLogos does NOT claim scientific evidence for God or the hand of God.   They simply express their belief that God, for example, uses evolution as His method.

Bottom line, since BioLogos is not strictly scientific (because it layers religion on top) it is fair to grade the site AS A WHOLE as not being purely scientific.

the mere fact that they credit any of it to God was the sole reason that they were rated conspiracy/pseudoscience.

But they actually rated it a zero on the "conspiracy theory" spectrum and very mild on the pseudoscience, and then explained why on that mild rating.  I had read the chart backwards initially and failed to take the time to read the rest of the review (thank you SP for pointing that out). 

That makes them the definition of intolerant bigotry.

I tend to disagree with that.  Now if they had rated it highly prone to pseudoscience (quackery) and conspiracy theory (Tin foil hat), then I might agree that their rating does not fit their reasoning.

They enforce that there is NO place whatsoever for God in science

Not really.  All they said is that it was not "known or provable" at least with the scientific evidence we have so far.  That is a true statement, yes?  It doesn't say that we will never have that evidence, nor that we can't choose to believe that someday we will.

By the way, that rating from MBFC will NOT preclude us from using BioLogos as a source on this site.  My understanding is that only those sources rated with the highest level of pseudoscience and conspiracy theory on MBFC would be frowned upon.  And for good reason, because those sorts of sources do not engender a "sober and intellectually honest integration’ of the scientific and spiritual perspectives", as Dr. Collins would put it. 

Thanks for the discussion HA, and everyone else as well.

I only called evolution pseudoscience because of the narrow minded intolerant bigotry of the pro science position as defined by MBFC.

Are you now saying that evolution isn't actually pseudoscience after all? That you only called it that because you felt some personal slight rather than actually address the scientific merits of evolution?

And the fact that since we started using those hate filled bigots as a contempt control device to silence other points of view.

When you have to resort to ad hom attacks, it's obvious your own points have little merit.

 I don’t consider creation or intelligent design or evolution to be pseudoscience but all reasonable attempts to explain origins as long as one side doesn’t resort to tools of censorship and content control to limit or shame other viewpoints. 

Creationism/ID is not science, nor are they even on the same playing field. They are religious based assumptions. You can have your viewpoint. But unless you can back it up with something empirical, as you have been challenged to do so multiple times in the past, then your view lacks any credibility and is not worthy of any serious consideration.

The so called pro science on issues like origins, Angels, The flood and global warming/climate control has polarized me and I’ve made every effort to find alternative sources to end run the pro science bigots and get what I believe out there. 

What you believe and what is actual fact are two different things. You always fail to understand that. You've been challenged before to empirically support your beliefs and/or discredit the actual science surrounding all that and you've always failed to do so or simply ignored the challenge. So why should your beliefs be given any consideration?

 Also the anti religion people here have said that faith is not a rational belief, and that the God of the Bible was impossible and that the Bible can’t be what we say it is.  They use reason and logic as weapons against belief.  

You've also been challenged multiple times to prove there's a god. That would surely put some in their place. But again, you have repeatedly dodged that challenge too, and rejected anything which contradicts your beliefs, which is more of an emotional response and thus irrational or unreasonable. Perhaps belief simply does not hold up against logic and reason, especially since it does not equal fact?

Science doesn't deal with God. Neither is religion science. So if God or religion is credited, then it is a mere assumption or belief and deviates from actual science. If you want god to be a credible explanation, then submit empirical evidence for God which follows the scientific method. Otherwise, god/religion has no credibility nor any place within a logical or scientific realm.

I will still find a way to get climate change and origins and religious beliefs closer to mine than the yellow star approved ones presented here for critical thinking and ethics whenever they show up on non embargoed sources.  

Quite the flawed approach to seek only confirming sources rather than follow the evidence to wherever it leads.

Not only is it arrogant to presume truth because of mere beliefs, but doing so limits ones ability to learn.

I will still find a way to get climate change and origins and religious beliefs closer to mine than the yellow star approved ones presented here for critical thinking and ethics whenever they show up on non embargoed sources.  

Then that's dishonest and lazy! You're engaging in confirmation bias (and using biased sources) rather than actually discussing or presenting any empirical evidence. You show an inability to present evidence to support your views, much less refute or discredit established ones, and default to emotion and mere belief, sans any evidence. And that's why belief is nowhere near on the same playing field as actual science.

I never said only.  I said to have my point of view included in conversations of whatever issue.  There are political issues that are like this as well, but it’s easy to get the outlook of say judicial watch here even if we can’t seed directly from them.  That applies across the political spectrum of issues too.  

I never said only.

There are many ways to express an idea.   The fact that you did not use the word 'only' does not change the meaning of your words:

HA @2.1.51 ☞ I will still find a way to get climate change and origins and religious beliefs closer to mine than the yellow star approved ones presented here for critical thinking and ethics whenever they show up on non embargoed sources.  

But if you are suggesting here that you plan to seriously consider sources which contradict your beliefs and that we should include that in your quoted words then I will certainly make that correction even though your comment history suggests (strongly) otherwise.

I’ll leave the meaning of my words to me and not rely on logic and reason proselytizers to tell me what I really said or meant.  As to what I say or repeat and where it came from is not your concern.  

God is the creator and author of all science.  Calling people dishonest or lazy for simply daring to disagree with you simply means you have nothing to say to me.

God is the creator and author of all science.

That's a perfect example of dishonest laziness: you make an emotional religiously biased assumption without a shred of supporting evidence and proclaim it as fact. You also start with an assumption or conclusion and then try to make any "evidence" fit your conclusion, which is not how science works.

 Calling people dishonest or lazy for simply daring to disagree with you simply means you have nothing to say to me.

Clearly you don't get it. It's not about whether you agree or disagree. It's about how well you can support your assertions and flowing the evidence where it leads, not where you want it to go. Then you play the wounded victim.

I’ll leave the meaning of my words to me and not rely on logic and reason proselytizers to tell me what I really said or meant.

You don't get to redefine words to suit your own narrative. That's just another exmple of dishonsety.

As to what I say or repeat and where it came from is not your concern.

It is when you try to pass it off as fact or use it to support your own claim.

I’ll leave the meaning of my words to me and not rely on logic and reason proselytizers to tell me what I really said or meant.

The meaning of your words is indeed your call.   Your readers however must interpret your meaning from the words you use.   I noted that I of course will accept a clarification of your meaning from you.  

Calling people dishonest or lazy for simply daring to disagree with you simply means you have nothing to say to me.

That is a total misrepresentation of Gordy's comment.   He did not say it is a problem to disagree.   He was referring to this comment from you:

HA @ 2.1.51 ☞ I will still find a way to get climate change and origins and religious beliefs closer to mine than the yellow star approved ones presented here for critical thinking and ethics whenever they show up on non embargoed sources.  

This comment reads as though you are still going to find a way to confirm your religious beliefs rather than follow the evidence to wherever it leads.   Gordy was commenting on that.   My comment now is that it is intellectually dishonest to misrepresent what someone writes — especially when you change the meaning of his words to something foreign to what he wrote.

That is a total misrepresentation of Gordy's comment.  

Nope …. it's not !

"That's a perfect example of dishonest laziness"

Gee.... How would "Gordy" want to interpret that entirely personal statement/paragraph of theirs . Enquiring minds want to know (Leaving out the "Interpreters" interpretation that is)  ! 

That's already been explained and TiG is correct too!

"That's already been explained and TiG is correct too!"

Your "Interpreter" really did try !

Logic 1 comes out in defense of Logic 2, 'cause logic 1 saw a flaw in Logic 2's "Emotional" Response (Seems Logical).

Emotions don't make it so. Emotions are Flawed. Analyze, analyze ….. flaws ……. emotions ……. analyze ……. POOF !

It seems you have nothing constructive to add. Not surprising.

Please expand on how my conclusion of the FACTS, as put in front of me by 2 Logics, isn't correct !

I'll wait !

Nothing that is in disagreement with them can be constructive according to them and their all seeing logic 

TiG & I are not the topic.

If you want constructive, then address the points made rather than deflecting.

You two make a point of being the topic every time a believer seeds or says anything positive about what we believe or why we do so.  We can count on you two to take it over and express your sheer and utter contempt for the expression of said belief and those daring to express them.  

That about sums up their “contribution” to the seed.  Well said and right on!  

No, we make it a point to challenge baseless claims made or misinformation spread. We have also said many times, you can believe whatever you want. But when you try to pass off belief as fact, especially on a public discussion forum, then it is deservedly and rightfully challenged. That you take such challenges personally is your problem! Don't like it? Then don't spew your disingenuous nonsense for all to see and reply to.

God is real.  That he exists and is our creator who authored science is fact.  That God have us free will and human rights is self evident.  There was a global flood and there will be a global fire. The universe is a grand design and God is the supremely intelligent designer.  That is reality and there’s nothing you can do to change it or hide it.  

God is real.  That he exists and is our creator who authored science is fact.

Prove it.

When one makes claims of certainty (such as those in your comment) one should be ready to provide facts and reason in support of the claims.   If one cannot accomplish this (which you clearly cannot) it is far better to simply express belief rather than certain truth.

For example (note the blue parts):

The above, as edited, is an expression of belief.   We all have the right to our beliefs.   We do not, however, have the right to make claims of truth and be free from being challenged to back up those claims with evidence and reason.  

If one willfully puts forth claims of certainty and routinely fails to even scratch the surface in terms of backing up said claims, one has no credibility to cry 'persecution' when challenged (and, in effect, ridicule oneself).

Nope.  No reason to.  We believe by faith and are saved by grace and there will never ever be proof or signs and wonders that doubters might believe.  It’s a matter of faith and growth as a result of a relationship.  We will believe what we do and say it is fact and that it is real no matter what.  It is real enough and the evidence is enough to have a rational faith and there is nothing that those who deny and refuse to believe can do or say to prevent the day every living soul on this earth will have heard the message of hope we have and be able to freely make a choice.  Creation is the source of our origins

I’m not going to get into a semantics discourse over choice of words. I’m going to assert that what I believe in is in fact real and a fact to me period.  You can protest however you want but it will not change what I believe or how I present it, no matter what you feel you need to do.  I’m not changing what I believe or how I express it.  

TiG & I are not the topic.

Then don't make yourselves "The Topic".

Maybe tell your sidekick that ?

I’m not going to get into a semantics discourse over choice of words.

Choice of words makes a profound difference in text-based communication.

• Amy:  God made Trump PotUS and if reelected, it will be God's will.
• Bob:  I believe God made Trump PotUS and if reelected, I believe it will be God's will.

In the above, Amy has made a claim of certainty that I suspect most people would find unsubstantiated (and absurd).   Further, it is arguably bad for society if people think that their political leader was selected by God.   Can you imagine why?    (hint: not all leaders are good people)

So Amy's claim of certainty will (and should) be challenged.    Since she is claiming certain truth, she bears the burden of evidence.   

Bob, in contrast, expressed his personal belief.   While he may be questioned as to why he could believe this strange notion, he has not claimed this as truth but rather simply opined on his personal belief.   No burden of evidence.

We believe by faith and are saved by grace and there will never ever be proof or signs and wonders that doubters might believe.

No doubt.   So hold your belief as such rather than come onto a public forum and declare that what you believe is fact (certain truth).   If you choose to declare your beliefs as facts then you should expect to be challenged.   It goes with the territory.   If you cannot stand being challenged then go to an echo chamber rather than a public forum.

God is real.  That he exists and is our creator who authored science is fact.

That's nice. Prove it!

 That God have us free will and human rights is self evident.  

There cannot be free will if god is omniscient.

There was a global flood and there will be a global fire. The universe is a grand design and God is the supremely intelligent designer.  

Demonstrably false!

That is reality and there’s nothing you can do to change it or hide it.  

That's not reality, especially not because you say so. That's just delusion.

Nope.  No reason to.  

That prove intellectual dishonesty and laziness.

We believe by faith and are saved by grace and there will never ever be proof or signs and wonders that doubters might believe.  

Belief does not equal fact!

 I’m going to assert that what I believe in is in fact real and a fact to me period. 

That doesn't make it real or fact in reality. Especially since you repeatedly fail to substantiate any of it.

 You can protest however you want but it will not change what I believe or how I present it, no matter what you feel you need to do.  I’m not changing what I believe or how I express it.  

Then you will continue to be challenged and called out for intellectual dishonesty and deflection.

Then don't make yourselves "The Topic".

We didn't.

Maybe tell your sidekick that

You can tell him yourself!

See? 

What did I tell you--this ALWAYS comes down to nothing more than "That's nice. Prove it!"

Every single time.

Why bother wasting your time?

They will never accept anything you say regarding a God they don't believe exists.

Just be content in your knowledge of a God and let them fend for themselves.

What did I tell you--this ALWAYS comes down to nothing more than "That's nice. Prove it!" Every single time.

Just like claims of "god exists," eh? A claim of certainty deserves to be challenged. Why is that a problem?

They will never accept anything you say regarding a God they don't believe exists.

Because we accept evidence. Not blind belief or empty claims.

Just be content in your knowledge of a God and let them fend for themselves.

I think we do just fine, thank you. No imaginary god needed or required.

So glad you at least didn't try to dispute what I wrote--which remains true and probably always will.

The part I don't get is all the time wasting and semantics when your very first comment could always be "That's nice. Prove it!"

Just cut to the chase and boil it all down at first instead of waiting for that favored line to appear.

So glad you at least didn't try to dispute what I wrote--which remains true and probably always will.

I've said before that any claims of certainty will be challenged. 

The part I don't get is all the time wasting and semantics when your very first comment could always be "That's nice. Prove it!"

"prove it" is an appropriate reply to a claim of certainty. 

I've said before that any claims of certainty will be challenged. 

Which does nothing to dispute what I wrote.

"prove it" is an appropriate reply to a claim of certainty.

So just LEAD with it. No need for all the other crap.

Glad we are in agreement.

Which does nothing to dispute what I wrote.

I wasn't disputing you.

So just LEAD with it. No need for all the other crap.

I'll submit my challenge as I like, thank you.

I wasn't disputing you.

I know. Did I not make that clear enough for you to get?

I'll submit my challenge as I like, thank you.

Suit yourself.

I get that some like to drone on and on, using lots of words when really all that is needed is two: "Prove it!".

Many pseudo-intellectuals I have run across exhibit the same tendencies.

it's cool, I have learned how to appropriately deal with them.

I know. Did I not make that clear enough for you to get?

Then why did you repeat yourself?

Suit yourself.

Thank you, I will.

I get that some like to drone on and on, using lots of words when really all that is needed is two: "Prove it!".

So the "that's nice" is droning on?

Many pseudo-intellectuals I have run across exhibit the same tendencies.

Your transparent ad hom attack is noted.

Then why did you repeat yourself?

Because it did not appear to me that you got it. Sometimes people require repetition before understanding. That's okay.

Thank you, I will.

You are welcome.

So the "that's nice" is droning on?

Yes, very good, that is a part of it. Good job!

Your transparent ad hom attack is noted.

Good. BTFW, what do you do with all of your little notes?

Now, please, as I know how important it is to you, take the last word.

Because it did not appear to me that you got it.

Then you were wrong.

Yes, very good, that is a part of it. Good job!

Wow, who knew 2 little words was considered droning on? Oh well.

BTFW, what do you do with all of your little notes?

What notes?

Now, please, as I know how important it is to you, take the last word.

Where do you get the idea that's important to me? I'm simply responding to your post.

it's cool, I have learned how to appropriately deal with them.

Apparently not.   Injecting attack meta accomplishes nothing of value;  it just triggers more meta in defense.   A better choice is to ignore all individuals who disagree with you; especially if one cannot formulate an effective rebuttal on content and resorts to merely complaining about style.

Why does the belief that god exists have to be challenged because it makes you feel good?  

It is the public claim that matters, not the belief.  The certain claim (declaration of truth) that the Christian God exists is a claim that the Bible is divine; that produces all sorts of claims of truth from ancient writers.   So the claim of existence is rather potent.

It's not the belief. It's the affirmative claims made based on belief that warants challenge, especially when there is no evidence provided to substantiate it. And as I've said before, belief does not equal fact. 

No it is the size of the ego.

You asked a question, I gave you an answer and you disregard it entirely.   Note that Gordy answered you the same way I did.

Each of us are the authorities on our own intentions.   If you ask of intention you should accept the answer unless proven by evidence to be a lie.

Here is an example of why religious 'truths' are challenged.   HA holds that Trump was put into office by God.   He is not alone in that belief.   Left unchallenged, religious views spread like a virus.   History proves this.   Thus when claims of certainty are made sans supporting evidence, those claims are appropriately challenged.

If most of our society actually believed (as HA) that the PotUS was appointed by God we would be operating under the same dangerous mindset that enabled thousands of years of ancient kings and emperors to dominate their subjects.    This is likely to not happen nowadays because these religious-based notions ARE challenged with facts and reason.

You are welcome.

No it is self importance that leads one to believe it matters what they believe or don't believe

Why are you making comments now if you think that the act of opining means the author is self-important?

Stubborn refusal to address a rebuttal is not very persuasive.

Once again, it's not about the belief. It's about the claims one makes based on the belief. People can believe whatever they want. But some people apparently cannot or will not differentiate belief from fact and make an affirmative claim based on the belief. Such claims warrant challenge.

Exactly right.

& reply to MUVA 2.1.98

Not even a little.

Why does the belief that god exists have to be challenged because it makes you feel good?

Perhaps they aren't secure enough in their own beliefs?

That conjecture is rather funny considering we haven't mentioned our beliefs. 

That conjecture is rather funny considering we haven't mentioned our beliefs. 

Oh, please.

I know you don't believe in God.

Prove me wrong on THAT.

No not really you only think you should challenge them because you think what what you believe or don't is important it really isn't.

look on the bright side. At least they can tell everyone who believes in God how illogical they are. And how scientific they themselves are.

Apparently not.   

Maybe not to you. But you damn sure don't know if I have or haven't.

No not really you only think you should challenge them because you think what what you believe or don't is important it really isn't.

You presume too much. And I never said what I believe is important or not. Neither have I mentioned my beliefs. So clearly my beliefs or lack of them is immaterial. I simply challenge those who make affirmative claims sans evidence.

I know you don't believe in God.

I didn't say god. I said belief.

At least they can tell everyone who believes in God how illogical they are. And how scientific they themselves are.

We use and rely on evidence, as does science. Not mere belief or emotion. Belief without something concrete or empirical is by definition is illogical.

I didn't say god. I said belief.

I know what you wrote, and my statement stands correctly.

Your belief is that God does not exist. You don't believe God exists.

Now, you may try to deny that and parse words, but we both know you don't believe God exists.

and my statement stands correctly.

No, it doesn't.

Your belief is that God does not exist. You don't believe God exists.

That's a contradictory statement. 

Now, you may try to deny that and parse words, but we both know you don't believe God exists.

Again, I didn't say belief in god. I said beliefs.  So your statement is still wrong!

No, it doesn't.

Yes, it does.

That's a contradictory statement. 

That's asinine.

Again, I didn't say belief in god. I said beliefs.  So your statement is still wrong!

Nope, but I'll let you think it because I don't have all day and enough crayons to explain where you get it.

Yes, it does.

Nope. But keep trying to convince yourself of that. 

That's asinine.

Not at all. You say I have a belief and then state I don't have a belief. Make up your mind.

Nope, but I'll let you think it because I don't have all day and enough crayons to explain where you get it.

Clearly it's you who doesn't get it, as belief is not exclusive to just God.

Not enough crayons in the world.

Childish responses only shows you have nothing to offer. Yeah, I think we're done!

MUVA apparently thinks he knows better than you what is in your mind.

Your comments illustrate that your way of 'handling them' is to make snarky meta comments rather than standing up and making a cogent, thoughtful rebuttal based on facts and reason.

& in reply to your post 2.1.119,

I've noticed the same thing. Both tactics reveal an inability to offer any logical or valid rebuttal. Such reactions tend to be more emotionally based and/or irrational. 

It probably takes you 10x as much time to try to rebut me as it does for me to state my beliefs as the facts that they are.  

Not really.  All one really need do is point out the lack of evidence you bring to bear.

The whole truth right there!  👏👍

💩🤮

You first have to offer something of substance or value to be worthy of rebuttal. But since you don't and just make baseless claims sans evidence, it's clear you have nothing. Least of all actual facts. Merely proclaiming your beliefs are facts doesn't make it so. It just makes you look foolish and dishonest!

Please note that the good Doctor has a mask. Not on his face, but he has one.