Francis Collins

There has been a lot of conversation lately about the appointment of Dr. Francis Collins to the position of Director of the National Institutes of Health. You see, Dr. Collins is a Christian who has stated that he doesn't believe there is any conflict between his beliefs and his work as a scientist. While many people - including, apparently, President Obama - agree with that notion, there are many who do not. In fact, there have been countless blogs, articles (more here) and interviews recently all centering on the question of whether Dr. Collins is capable of running a federally-funded scientific institute as a Bible believing Christian. He has since taken the reins at the NIH and made a point of acknowledging the tumult by stating:

"I want to reassure everyone I am here to lead the NIH as best I can, as a scientist," Collins said, noting Internet and editorial page concerns about Collins, as an evangelical Christian, leading a science organization.

He has also presented the "five themes" that will guide the NIH under his leadership. These include a focus on global health, domestic health and medical treatment, and support for large-scale projects, including studies on autism. In all, a very impressive agenda, but it won't silence the critics who will continue to claim that Collin's "unscientific" beliefs in miracles compromise his ability to lead the august NIH.

As you can see in the interview excerpted below, both Collins and Richard Dawkins disagree with the late Stephen Jay Gould's notion that the two enterprises represent "non-overlapping magisteria", placing the question of God outside of the realm of science.

TIME: Dr. Collins, the Resurrection is an essential argument of Christian faith, but doesn't it, along with the virgin birth and lesser miracles, fatally undermine the scientific method, which depends on the constancy of natural laws?

COLLINS: If you're willing to answer yes to a God outside of nature, then there's nothing inconsistent with God on rare occasions choosing to invade the natural world in a way that appears miraculous. If God made the natural laws, why could he not violate them when it was a particularly significant moment for him to do so? And if you accept the idea that Christ was also divine, which I do, then his Resurrection is not in itself a great logical leap.

TIME: Doesn't the very notion of miracles throw off science?

COLLINS: Not at all. If you are in the camp I am, one place where science and faith could touch each other is in the investigation of supposedly miraculous events.

DAWKINS: If ever there was a slamming of the door in the face of constructive investigation, it is the word miracle. To a medieval peasant, a radio would have seemed like a miracle. All kinds of things may happen which we by the lights of today's science would classify as a miracle just as medieval science might a Boeing 747. Francis keeps saying things like "From the perspective of a believer." Once you buy into the position of faith, then suddenly you find yourself losing all of your natural skepticism and your scientific--really scientific--credibility. I'm sorry to be so blunt.

And the closing remarks:

COLLINS: I just would like to say that over more than a quarter-century as a scientist and a believer, I find absolutely nothing in conflict between agreeing with Richard in practically all of his conclusions about the natural world, and also saying that I am still able to accept and embrace the possibility that there are answers that science isn't able to provide about the natural world--the questions about why instead of the questions about how. I'm interested in the whys. I find many of those answers in the spiritual realm. That in no way compromises my ability to think rigorously as a scientist.

DAWKINS: My mind is not closed, as you have occasionally suggested, Francis. My mind is open to the most wonderful range of future possibilities, which I cannot even dream about, nor can you, nor can anybody else. What I am skeptical about is the idea that whatever wonderful revelation does come in the science of the future, it will turn out to be one of the particular historical religions that people happen to have dreamed up. When we started out and we were talking about the origins of the universe and the physical constants, I provided what I thought were cogent arguments against a supernatural intelligent designer. But it does seem to me to be a worthy idea. Refutable--but nevertheless grand and big enough to be worthy of respect. I don't see the Olympian gods or Jesus coming down and dying on the Cross as worthy of that grandeur. They strike me as parochial. If there is a God, it's going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed.