NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- Echoing similar comments from President Bush, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said "intelligent design" should be taught in public schools alongside evolution.
Frist, R-Tenn., spoke to a Rotary Club meeting Friday and told reporters afterward that students need to be exposed to different ideas, including intelligent design.
"I think today a pluralistic society should have access to a broad range of fact, of science, including faith," Frist said.
Frist, a doctor who graduated from Harvard Medical School, said exposing children to both evolution and intelligent design "doesn't force any particular theory on anyone. I think in a pluralistic society that is the fairest way to go about education and training people for the future."
The theory of intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying that a higher power must have had a hand in creation. Nearly all scientists dismiss it as a scientific theory, and critics say it's nothing more than religion masquerading as science.
Bush recently told a group of Texas reporters that intelligent design and evolution should both be taught in schools "so people can understand what the debate is about."
That comment sparked criticism from opponents, including Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean, who called Bush "anti-science."
Frist, who is considering a presidential campaign in 2008, recently angered some conservatives by bucking Bush policy on embryonic stem cell research, voicing his support for expanded research on the subject.
Frist said his decision to endorse stem cell research was "a matter of science," but he said there was no conflict between his position on stem cell research and his position on intelligent design.
"To me, I see no disconnect between that and stem cell research," Frist said. "I base my beliefs on stem cell research both on science and my faith."
A few curious notes from a wacko, evangelical, zealot......I don't believe ID in its current form should be taught because it isn't a scientific theory. By that, I only mean that it doesn't have a model that makes predictions, is falsifiable (though I doubt evolution is truly falsifiable either), etc. As it sits, it is only a rebuttal to evolution, which quite frankly should probably be taught (to some degree) as part of a lesson on evolution anyway.
Okay, I do really like Bush's point that ID should be taught so that people understand what the debate is about. Good point. People try to ignore ID, etc. and pretend it doesn't exist, even though it does. I don't agree that is a reason it should be taught, but somewhere in education, it seems appropriate to discuss it so that people do understand what the debate is about. I am biased there because I never had any exposure to anything other than evolution during the first 2 decades of my life. It was simply taught as known fact, and there was no reason for further investigation, only additional finds in the fossil record.
I have to believe that Frist is trying to gain some points politically. As a guy who knows science, he should recognize that ID, while having science behind it of several disciplines and people in the field, does not offer anything, in that it doesn't give an alternative. Well, it does, but not in the sense that it has a model.
Your thoughts?
Tracer Bullet
08-22-05, 06:41 PM
Evolution is taught in science class, and in the scientific community, there is no debate.
If parents want their kids to be taught "intelligent design", they can homeschool them. ;)
Groucho
08-22-05, 06:44 PM
If parents want their kids to be taught "intelligent design", they can homeschool them. ;)That's just it...the children of Creationists are being educated in the theory. Whether it be through homeschooling, private school, Sunday school, etc.
So I wonder, what's the real reasoning being the push to put this in public schools?
OldDude
08-22-05, 06:46 PM
I have to believe that Frist is trying to gain some points politically. As a guy who knows science, he should recognize that ID, while having science behind it of several disciplines and people in the field, does not offer anything, in that it doesn't give an alternative. Well, it does, but not in the sense that it has a model.
Your thoughts?
I think he should surrender his doctor's license and become a Christian Scientist. Bush and Frist could make that the cornerstone of Medicare: you better pray you get better.
I don't mind if ID is "mentioned" and people are told they can learn more at church. I don't think there is anything to "teach" as it can be expressed in 30 seconds and there is absolutely no data to back it up.
Tracer Bullet
08-22-05, 06:49 PM
That's just it...the children of Creationists are being educated in the theory. Whether it be through homeschooling, private school, Sunday school, etc.
So I wonder, what's the real reasoning being the push to put this in public schools?
Hmm... I wonder.
mikehunt
08-22-05, 06:58 PM
I don't mind one day in bio being spent mentioning ID and saying "today's topic is something that is trongly believed by some...." just so kids are aware that there is disagreement out there
but other than that it really shouldn't be discussed too much
kvrdave
08-22-05, 07:08 PM
That's just it...the children of Creationists are being educated in the theory. Whether it be through homeschooling, private school, Sunday school, etc.
So I wonder, what's the real reasoning being the push to put this in public schools?
We would probably disagree on the reason it is being pushed. Personally, I believe it is due to a failure of the education system to accurately teach what evolution does and does not explain.
Thor Simpson
08-22-05, 07:13 PM
While I think it's fair to include a day on the limitations of evolutionary science to date and that "other theories exist, including this Intelligent Design one," it really shouldn't take more than an hour to explain that and then continue with the teaching of how evolution behaves.
kvrdave
08-22-05, 07:15 PM
I tend to think that the limitations of evolution should be taught all the way through the course as it is appropriate. Otherwise, I think it treats some very valid objections in a dismissive way.
I don't know why it is so wrong to teach the good and bad about a theory.
E70f
08-22-05, 07:15 PM
it [ID] really shouldn't be discussed too much
It can be discussed until the teachers and students are blue in the face - in philosophy class. It has no place in science class.
Did/do the Taliban teach evolution or some form of ID?
Tracer Bullet
08-22-05, 07:19 PM
I tend to think that the limitations of evolution should be taught all the way through the course as it is appropriate. Otherwise, I think it treats some very valid objections in a dismissive way.
I don't know why it is so wrong to teach the good and bad about a theory.
There's nothing wrong with examining the limitations of evolution. However, I don't think it's reasonable to teach "intelligent design" as a competing theory (or to even mention it), because there is nothing scientific about it.
grundle
08-22-05, 07:23 PM
Yes! This is a great idea! I believe that the public schools should teach creationism along with evolution.
I also believe they should teach astrology along with astronomy.
And I also believe they should teach alchemy along with chemistry.
And I also believe they should teach psychic reading along with physics.
And I also believe they should teach magic along with science.
Pharoh
08-22-05, 07:25 PM
That's just it...the children of Creationists are being educated in the theory. Whether it be through homeschooling, private school, Sunday school, etc.
So I wonder, what's the real reasoning being the push to put this in public schools?
And what would happen if they brought up this concept in their public school class since they are being taught it somewhere? Would discussion be allowed, or is public school supposed to be simply education by rote?
OldDude
08-22-05, 07:27 PM
And I also believe they should teach alchemy along with chemistry.
Absolutely. I really wish I had been able to learn to turn lead into gold in high school. Why, I'd be RICH!!!!
kvrdave
08-22-05, 07:28 PM
There's nothing wrong with examining the limitations of evolution. However, I don't think it's reasonable to teach "intelligent design" as a competing theory (or to even mention it), because there is nothing scientific about it.
That's all I have said. :)
Although, I would say there is nothing scientific about it. Given the positions held by those who seem to be best know (like Behe), I am quite sure there is science behind it.
VinVega
08-22-05, 07:50 PM
Yes! This is a great idea! I believe that the public schools should teach creationism along with evolution.
I also believe they should teach astrology along with astronomy.
And I also believe they should teach alchemy along with chemistry.
And I also believe they should teach psychic reading along with physics.
And I also believe they should teach magic along with science.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I'm with grundle here. :D
E70f
08-22-05, 07:54 PM
And what would happen if they brought up this concept in their public school class since they are being taught it somewhere? Would discussion be allowed, or is public school supposed to be simply education by rote?
What would happen if a child brought up some new (and wrong) form of math? Should we stop the learning by rote "1, 2, 3, 4" and explore the new "1, 2, fdsxf, wibble" form of math?
Pharoh
08-22-05, 08:12 PM
What would happen if a child brought up some new (and wrong) form of math? Should we stop the learning by rote "1, 2, 3, 4" and explore the new "1, 2, fdsxf, wibble" form of math?
Firstly, I don't believe that the theory of evolution is the same as our number system. Secondly, I am not talking about a new silly system of some sort believed by one person, but rather a belief held apparently by millions and millions of Americans. It isn't the same situation.
By the way, I don't believe in the theory of ID.
classicman2
08-22-05, 08:29 PM
Frist, unlike his fellow senator Chuck Hagel, seems to understand that you don't anger your base too much if you want to be president.
He pissed 'em off a little with his support of stem cell research. Now he's seen the light and wishes to atone for his mistakes. ;)
jaeufraser
08-22-05, 09:18 PM
Firstly, I don't believe that the theory of evolution is the same as our number system. Secondly, I am not talking about a new silly system of some sort believed by one person, but rather a belief held apparently by millions and millions of Americans. It isn't the same situation.
Of course, the question then is how many people have to believe in something before it's supposed to be taught in science class?
I suppose I could see ID being taught in a science class...but not as anything more then a couple sentences.
"Some people believe in alternatives...such as ID, creationism, the planet Xenu."
Beyond that, I really can't see what else there would be to say. None of the supposedly scientific backing of this concept is considered actual science. How could it? "Absent an answer, it must be God!" is not a logical scientific theory.
Tracer Bullet
08-22-05, 09:46 PM
Firstly, I don't believe that the theory of evolution is the same as our number system. Secondly, I am not talking about a new silly system of some sort believed by one person, but rather a belief held apparently by millions and millions of Americans. It isn't the same situation.
By the way, I don't believe in the theory of ID.
Yes, it is a belief. A belief wholly unsupported and unsupportable by scientific rigor.
We're not supposed to teach beliefs in science class.
chess
08-22-05, 10:37 PM
Once, I heard somebody say "don't pray in my school, and I won't think in your church", which sounded like a pretty fair deal to me.
Groucho
08-22-05, 10:46 PM
We would probably disagree on the reason it is being pushed. Personally, I believe it is due to a failure of the education system to accurately teach what evolution does and does not explain.While I believe that this is sincerely your reasoning, Dave, I don't think it applies to most who are interested in introducing Creationism in public schools. Let's be real here.
worrywort
08-22-05, 10:58 PM
Who's the marketing wizard who came up with the phrase "intelligent design" ? I bet it's the same guys who came up with "faith-based initiative" or "the international struggle against ideological extremism"
JasonF
08-22-05, 11:35 PM
Once, I heard somebody say "don't pray in my school, and I won't think in your church", which sounded like a pretty fair deal to me.
My alternate proposal is that we can have prayer and Intelligent Design in school, and mandatory teaching of high school biology in church.
sfsdfd
08-23-05, 12:30 AM
We would probably disagree on the reason it is being pushed. Personally, I believe it is due to a failure of the education system to accurately teach what evolution does and does not explain.
When's the last time you attended an evolution class? Those I attended - both high school (1991, 1992) and in undergrad (1996, 1997) - taught both the strenths and the problems with evolution. They go hand in hand. AFAIK, <b>no one</b> teaches evolution as a means of explaining everything about the fossil record. (In fact, given the proportion of knowledge that evolution <i>can</i> explain vs. what it <i>can't</i> explain, a typical lecture <i>disproportionately</i> stresses the flaws. But that's because they're interesting.)
Seriously, the critics of evolution have likely not attended a lecture on it. Their beef isn't with the way evolution is being taught, because they apparently don't know that. Their agenda is just to have more God taught in the classroom. "Intelligent design" is merely a shoehorn.
- David Stein
CRM114
08-23-05, 09:38 AM
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I'm with grundle here. :D
Likewise. :up:
Red Dog
08-23-05, 09:43 AM
Well, he already moved to the left on stem cells, so he had to move back to the right.
Again I ask the question, is a lot of time really spent on evolution and origins of life in public schools to begin with? Is this really that big of an issue?
classicman2
08-23-05, 09:55 AM
A lot of time wasn't spent on 30 second school prayer either - was there?
Therefore, why should it be that big of an issue?
mosquitobite
08-23-05, 10:03 AM
Take government out of schools and all this debate ends.
Other than that, I agree with sfsdfd. When I learned about evolution in college (I went to a Catholic High school) it did not change my beliefs about God. It wasn't the first I had heard of evolution (probably because of the debates).
My husband and I have good debates on this subject. I believe in ID AND evolution. That is, God created us, and there has been some evolving. He doesn't believe in evolution...period. :)
Red Dog
08-23-05, 10:07 AM
A lot of time wasn't spent on 30 second school prayer either - was there?
Therefore, why should it be that big of an issue?
The teaching of evolution is unquestionably constitutional. The same cannot be said of school-led prayer. Regardless, I've said on numerous occasions (with the exception of the Zelman case) that I don't think these religion in schools incidents are major issues - I simply agree with the argument that public school-led religion is unconstitutional.
Red Dog
08-23-05, 10:11 AM
Take government out of schools and all this debate ends.
Other than that, I agree with sfsdfd. When I learned about evolution in college (I went to a Catholic High school) it did not change my beliefs about God. It wasn't the first I had heard of evolution (probably because of the debates).
Hey, that's what I usually say! ;)
If the teaching of evolution is the work of the devil, and if parents have their panties in a bunch about it, can't they just have their minister (or ID expert) advance his argument to the kids in church on Sundays to counteract the evolution argument?
mosquitobite
08-23-05, 10:14 AM
Yep. If religious parents don't want evolution taught to their kids, they shouldn't be sending them to public schools. Period.
VinVega
08-23-05, 11:13 AM
My husband and I have good debates on this subject. I believe in ID AND evolution. That is, God created us, and there has been some evolving. He doesn't believe in evolution...period. :)
So in essence, you're the liberal of the household (at least in this debate). :lol::up:
;)
kvrdave
08-23-05, 11:24 AM
When's the last time you attended an evolution class? Those I attended - both high school (1991, 1992) and in undergrad (1996, 1997) - taught both the strenths and the problems with evolution. They go hand in hand. AFAIK, <b>no one</b> teaches evolution as a means of explaining everything about the fossil record. (In fact, given the proportion of knowledge that evolution <i>can</i> explain vs. what it <i>can't</i> explain, a typical lecture <i>disproportionately</i> stresses the flaws. But that's because they're interesting.)
Seriously, the critics of evolution have likely not attended a lecture on it. Their beef isn't with the way evolution is being taught, because they apparently don't know that. Their agenda is just to have more God taught in the classroom. "Intelligent design" is merely a shoehorn.
- David Stein
I think we discussed this before. Graduated HS in '89, college in '93, last biology course in '92 (Spring, iirc). Didn't have any biology in graduate school, but that wasn't why I was there.
Also, I think that this might very well be a much bigger regional deal. The Pacific NW has the lowest church attendance of any region, so it certainly makes sense that it could be less likely to teach problems or anything that might lead to doubt in evolution. I am sure that if I grew up in the South or most anywhere else, I would have heard of Creationism prior to my 20s. From posts of other people around here, it sounds like it has been a huge debate (and an open one) as long as they remember. Hell, we didn't even read Inherit the Wind in any classes I had, and I took most every advanced English class around.
kvrdave
08-23-05, 11:25 AM
Yep. If religious parents don't want evolution taught to their kids, they shouldn't be sending them to public schools. Period.
See, I don't mind it being taught to my kids, I just want it to be treated fairly.
mosquitobite
08-23-05, 11:26 AM
So in essence, you're the liberal of the household (at least in this debate). :lol::up:
;)
:grunt:
Breakfast with Girls
08-23-05, 11:26 AM
Hey, I don't have a problem with it... so long as Bush and Frist and other ID proponents don't have a problem with science teachers ripping apart Intelligent Design based on the evidence, or having kids compare the faults of both ID and evolution. Open debate and critical thinking in classrooms would help explain what a theory is and isn't, and might make this debate go away in 20 years.
mosquitobite
08-23-05, 11:28 AM
BWG, your signature doesn't belong in this debate. :lol:
kvrdave
08-23-05, 11:29 AM
Hey, I don't have a problem with it... so long as Bush and Frist and other ID proponents don't have a problem with science teachers ripping apart Intelligent Design based on the evidence, or having kids compare the faults of both ID and evolution. Open debate and critical thinking in classrooms would help explain what a theory is and isn't, and might make this debate go away in 20 years.
And there it is. My point was that by keeping out the "critical thinking" aspect, you can guarantee that we will be having this discussion for the next hundred years. If it is really nothing, face it head on, and get it out of the way.
Red Dog
08-23-05, 11:31 AM
Also, I think that this might very well be a much bigger regional deal. The Pacific NW has the lowest church attendance of any region, so it certainly makes sense that it could be less likely to teach problems or anything that might lead to doubt in evolution. I am sure that if I grew up in the South or most anywhere else, I would have heard of Creationism prior to my 20s. From posts of other people around here, it sounds like it has been a huge debate (and an open one) as long as they remember. Hell, we didn't even read Inherit the Wind in any classes I had, and I took most every advanced English class around.
So you didn't have any of those god-fearing folks singing "Gimme that old time religion" out on the streets? You really missed out. ;)
kvrdave
08-23-05, 11:49 AM
So you didn't have any of those god-fearing folks singing "Gimme that old time religion" out on the streets? You really missed out. ;)
:lol: Nope. We just have hippies begging for $5 so they can get a frappuccino.
sfsdfd
08-23-05, 12:46 PM
I think we discussed this before. Graduated HS in '89, college in '93, last biology course in '92 (Spring, iirc). Didn't have any biology in graduate school, but that wasn't why I was there.
I didn't actually mean that to read as aggressively as it does - sorry. But it seems like you read over it to get to the core of my argument, so thanks.
The Pacific NW has the lowest church attendance of any region, so it certainly makes sense that it could be less likely to teach problems or anything that might lead to doubt in evolution.
But that's just it. I don't believe there's any correlation between flaws in evolution and religion. Evolution, at present, is an incomplete theory - you have to know its gaps for a full understanding of it. It's the same as with every other body of science - the unpredictability of chemistry, the illogic of quantum mechanics, the fascinating mysteries of astrophysics.
That's what's so frustrating about the "Intelligent Design" "theory" - it's being pitched to the public to fill a perceived shortcoming that, in fact, really doesn't exist. This is intentionally misleading - more so because the point of "Intelligent Design" really isn't to point out the gaps, but to suggest filling them in with religion.
- David Stein
kvrdave
08-23-05, 01:48 PM
I didn't actually mean that to read as aggressively as it does - sorry. But it seems like you read over it to get to the core of my argument, so thanks.
:)
But that's just it. I don't believe there's any correlation between flaws in evolution and religion. Evolution, at present, is an incomplete theory - you have to know its gaps for a full understanding of it. It's the same as with every other body of science - the unpredictability of chemistry, the illogic of quantum mechanics, the fascinating mysteries of astrophysics.
That's what's so frustrating about the "Intelligent Design" "theory" - it's being pitched to the public to fill a perceived shortcoming that, in fact, really doesn't exist. This is intentionally misleading - more so because the point of "Intelligent Design" really isn't to point out the gaps, but to suggest filling them in with religion.
- David Stein
I think we agree on this. My argument would be two things: Much of the ID movement or Creationist movement trying to be included in biology is a direct result of biology courses not doing a fair treatment of the limits of evolution. We may disagree on that, but it is certainly my perception from my own experiences. Secondly, I don't believe it is possible for anyone to legitimately question evolution as it is taught in the public system without being accused/attacked on religious grounds rather than on the merit of the point brought up. This may be a natural, as I doubt an atheist has any alternative but to believe in evolution as the only possible solution, but it still mutes the discussion of legitimate concerns. If ID is not successful, there will be another group who will try to appear even less religious, but the will still be accused of trying to disguise their true purpose. So, effectively, no one can question evolution if they are religious because the fact that they are religious is more important in the argument than the actual argument presented. :shrug:
Groucho
08-23-05, 02:05 PM
My argument would be two things: Much of the ID movement or Creationist movement trying to be included in biology is a direct result of biology courses not doing a fair treatment of the limits of evolution.As stated already, I disagree strongly on this. There are plenty of subjects out there that are taught poorly. Why the focus on Evolution?Secondly, I don't believe it is possible for anyone to legitimately question evolution as it is taught in the public system without being accused/attacked on religious grounds rather than on the merit of the point brought up.This may be true, but how often is evolution ever questioned by somebody who isn't religiously motivated? Answer in the spoiler tags below:Answer: all the time. The theory is an ever-state of flux as new evidence is discovered. The current thoughts on evolution are very different than what was initially hypothesized by Darwin.
kvrdave
08-23-05, 02:19 PM
As stated already, I disagree strongly on this. There are plenty of subjects out there that are taught poorly. Why the focus on Evolution?
I don't think other subjects are seen as "taught poorly" across the entire system. It may vary from school to school, but not as a whole. Additionally, you are talking about theory that is treated as fact. If you were to teach that 2+2=3, you would get more people irritated with the way we teach math. Those that want to say that ID is analogous to teaching 2+2=3 need to go back and understand the differences between the simple and complex sciences, as it is not an apt analogy.
This may be true, but how often is evolution ever questioned by somebody who isn't religiously motivated? Answer in the spoiler tags below:Answer: all the time. The theory is an ever-state of flux as new evidence is discovered. The current thoughts on evolution are very different than what was initially hypothesized by Darwin.
You and I may know that, but the bulk of people do not. The bulk of people do not know that there is a great controversy over the dino to bird ideas, the tree down vs. the tree up ideas, or the temporal paradox wrt Archaeopteryx. They don't know that because it isn't generally taught. I have no disagreement that often the worst opponent to an evolutionary idea is a competing evolutionist. However, again in my experience, it was never treated that way.
kvrdave
08-23-05, 03:27 PM
I found this interesting. You might as well. I bolded very little of it, but one thing I bolded was because it was funny, and one because it seems to fit with the thread.
Scientists Speak Up on Mix of God and Science
By CORNELIA DEAN
At a recent scientific conference at City College of New York, a student in the audience rose to ask the panelists an unexpected question: "Can you be a good scientist and believe in God?"
Reaction from one of the panelists, all Nobel laureates, was quick and sharp. "No!" declared Herbert A. Hauptman, who shared the chemistry prize in 1985 for his work on the structure of crystals.
Belief in the supernatural, especially belief in God, is not only incompatible with good science, Dr. Hauptman declared, "this kind of belief is damaging to the well-being of the human race."
But disdain for religion is far from universal among scientists. And today, as religious groups challenge scientists in arenas as various as evolution in the classroom, AIDS prevention and stem cell research, scientists who embrace religion are beginning to speak out about their faith.
"It should not be a taboo subject, but frankly it often is in scientific circles," said Francis S. Collins, who directs the National Human Genome Research Institute and who speaks freely about his Christian faith.
Although they embrace religious faith, these scientists also embrace science as it has been defined for centuries. That is, they look to the natural world for explanations of what happens in the natural world and they recognize that scientific ideas must be provisional - capable of being overturned by evidence from experimentation and observation. This belief in science sets them apart from those who endorse creationism or its doctrinal cousin, intelligent design, both of which depend on the existence of a supernatural force.
Their belief in God challenges scientists who regard religious belief as little more than magical thinking, as some do. Their faith also challenges believers who denounce science as a godless enterprise and scientists as secular elitists contemptuous of God-fearing people.
Some scientists say simply that science and religion are two separate realms, "nonoverlapping magisteria," as the late evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould put it in his book "Rocks of Ages" (Ballantine, 1999). In Dr. Gould's view, science speaks with authority in the realm of "what the universe is made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory)" and religion holds sway over "questions of ultimate meaning and moral value."
When the American Association for the Advancement of Science devoted a session to this idea of separation at its annual meeting this year, scores of scientists crowded into a room to hear it.
Some of them said they were unsatisfied with the idea, because they believe scientists' moral values must inevitably affect their work, others because so much of science has so many ethical implications in the real world.
One panelist, Dr. Noah Efron of Bar-Ilan University in Israel, said scientists, like other people, were guided by their own human purposes, meaning and values. The idea that fact can be separated from values and meaning "jibes poorly with what we know of the history of science," Dr. Efron said.
Dr. Collins, who is working on a book about his religious faith, also believes that people should not have to keep religious beliefs and scientific theories strictly separate. "I don't find it very satisfactory and I don't find it very necessary," he said in an interview. He noted that until relatively recently, most scientists were believers. "Isaac Newton wrote a lot more about the Bible than the laws of nature," he said.
But he acknowledged that as head of the American government's efforts to decipher the human genetic code, he had a leading role in work that many say definitively demonstrates the strength of evolutionary theory to explain the complexity and abundance of life.
As scientists compare human genes with those of other mammals, tiny worms, even bacteria, the similarities "are absolutely compelling," Dr. Collins said. "If Darwin had tried to imagine a way to prove his theory, he could not have come up with something better, except maybe a time machine. Asking somebody to reject all of that in order to prove that they really do love God - what a horrible choice."
Dr. Collins was a nonbeliever until he was 27 - "more and more into the mode of being not only agnostic but being an atheist," as he put it. All that changed after he completed his doctorate in physics and was at work on his medical degree, when he was among those treating a woman dying of heart disease. "She was very clear about her faith and she looked me square in the eye and she said, 'what do you believe?' " he recalled. "I sort of stammered out, 'I am not sure.' "
He said he realized then that he had never considered the matter seriously, the way a scientist should. He began reading about various religious beliefs, which only confused him. Finally, a Methodist minister gave him a book, "Mere Christianity," by C. S. Lewis. In the book Lewis, an atheist until he was a grown man, argues that the idea of right and wrong is universal among people, a moral law they "did not make, and cannot quite forget even when they try." This universal feeling, he said, is evidence for the plausibility of God.
When he read the book, Dr. Collins said, "I thought, my gosh, this guy is me."
Today, Dr. Collins said, he does not embrace any particular denomination, but he is a Christian. Colleagues sometimes express surprise at his faith, he said. "They'll say, 'how can you believe that? Did you check your brain at the door?" But he said he had discovered in talking to students and colleagues that "there is a great deal of interest in this topic."
Polling Scientists on Beliefs
According to a much-discussed survey reported in the journal Nature in 1997, 40 percent of biologists, physicists and mathematicians said they believed in God - and not just a nonspecific transcendental presence but, as the survey put it, a God to whom one may pray "in expectation of receiving an answer."
The survey, by Edward J. Larson of the University of Georgia, was intended to replicate one conducted in 1914, and the results were virtually unchanged. In both cases, participants were drawn from a directory of American scientists.
Others play down those results. They note that when Dr. Larson put part of the same survey to "leading scientists" - in this case, members of the National Academy of Sciences, perhaps the nation's most eminent scientific organization - fewer than 10 percent professed belief in a personal God or human immortality.
This response is not surprising to researchers like Steven Weinberg, a physicist at the University of Texas, a member of the academy and a winner of the Nobel Prize in 1979 for his work in particle physics. He said he could understand why religious people would believe that anything that eroded belief was destructive. But he added: "I think one of the great historical contributions of science is to weaken the hold of religion. That's a good thing."
No God, No Moral Compass?
He rejects the idea that scientists who reject religion are arrogant. "We know how many mistakes we've made," Dr. Weinberg said. And he is angered by assertions that people without religious faith are without a moral compass.
In any event, he added, "the experience of being a scientist makes religion seem fairly irrelevant," he said. "Most scientists I know simply don't think about it very much. They don't think about religion enough to qualify as practicing atheists."
Most scientists he knows who do believe in God, he added, believe in "a God who is behind the laws of nature but who is not intervening."
Kenneth R. Miller, a biology professor at Brown, said his students were often surprised to find that he was religious, especially when they realized that his faith was not some sort of vague theism but observant Roman Catholicism.
Dr. Miller, whose book, "Finding Darwin's God," explains his reconciliation of the theory of evolution with his religious faith, said he was usually challenged in his biology classes by one or two students whose religions did not accept evolution, who asked how important the theory would be in the course.
"What they are really asking me is "do I have to believe in this stuff to get an A?,' " he said. He says he tells them that "belief is never an issue in science."
"I don't care if you believe in the Krebs cycle," he said, referring to the process by which energy is utilized in the cell. "I just want you to know what it is and how it works. My feeling about evolution is the same thing."
For Dr. Miller and other scientists, research is not about belief. "Faith is one thing, what you believe from the heart," said Joseph E. Murray, who won the Nobel Prize in medicine in 1990 for his work in organ transplantation. But in scientific research, he said, "it's the results that count."
Dr. Murray, who describes himself as "a cradle Catholic" who has rarely missed weekly Mass and who prays every morning, said that when he was preparing for the first ever human organ transplant, a kidney that a young man had donated to his identical twin, he and his colleagues consulted a number of religious leaders about whether they were doing the right thing. "It seemed natural," he said.
Using Every Tool
"When you are searching for truth you should use every possible avenue, including revelation," said Dr. Murray, who is a member of the Pontifical Academy, which advises the Vatican on scientific issues, and who described the influence of his faith on his work in his memoir, "Surgery of the Soul" (Science History Publications, 2002).
Since his appearance at the City College panel, when he was dismayed by the tepid reception received by his remarks on the incompatibility of good science and religious belief, Dr. Hauptman said he had been discussing the issue with colleagues in Buffalo, where he is president of the Hauptman-Woodward Medical Research Institute.
"I think almost without exception the people I have spoken to are scientists and they do believe in the existence of a supreme being," he said. "If you ask me to explain it - I cannot explain it at all."
But Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary theorist at Oxford, said that even scientists who were believers did not claim evidence for that belief. "The most they will claim is that there is no evidence against," Dr. Dawkins said, "which is pathetically weak. There is no evidence against all sorts of things, but we don't waste our time believing in them."
Dr. Collins said he believed that some scientists were unwilling to profess faith in public "because the assumption is if you are a scientist you don't have any need of action of the supernatural sort," or because of pride in the idea that science is the ultimate source of intellectual meaning.
But he said he believed that some scientists were simply unwilling to confront the big questions religion tried to answer. "You will never understand what it means to be a human being through naturalistic observation," he said. "You won't understand why you are here and what the meaning is. Science has no power to address these questions - and are they not the most important questions we ask ourselves?"
Buy: