Curiosity is a fine thing and I have to encourage any wellspring for it. However, the defining feature of Collins' faith, and that part of it that makes it objectionable, is that he uses it to wall off parts of the human world from curiosity. The human genome project was a technological exercise, a sustained, disciplined effort to apply developing tools to a specific, narrow problem. It opens up new avenues for science, but in itself was not a demonstration of scientific competence. His administrative ability led the work to a conclusion, not his scientific skill set.
And what has he done with it afterwards? Declared the genome a divine artifact, decreed that certain domains, such as human behavior and morality, are exempt from scientific scrutiny, and proposed a succession of freakish Christian dogmas as substitutes for reasoned analysis. At this point, where the real science takes over, his faith only gets in the way.
And please, don't ever equate faith with ethics. They have nothing to do with each other, except, perhaps, that faith is a commonly used escape clause to get away from the requirements of human morality. Science itself is a tool, as amoral as a hammer, and it certainly can be misused, but don't go crawling to the priests for guidance. Let's hear from philosophers, psychologists, sociologists, and lawyers long, long before we consult with theologians—I can't imagine a worse fate for scientific ethics than for it to fall under the sway of a dogmatic Christian.
I would rather Obama had appointed someone who wore practical shoes, and didn't make much of a fuss about them, anyway. And excuse me, but I don't want American science to be represented by a clown.
Interesting how quickly the notion of "party" changed in American political life. Even through Monroe, the republicans tended to view party as synonymous with 'faction'. A potentially inevitable, but always unfortunate fact of politics that should be controlled, never encourage. (as an aside, Monroe, that expositor of American exceptionalism did NOT believe that parties were an inevitable part of the American system...why? because it was perfect, that's why). With the rise of the NY machine and the Jacksonian democrats, party became something to be proud of and to promote, not something to be hidden behind cognitive dissonance and speeches full of equivocation.
There is not a tremendous amount of new information in this book, although I imagine it is as good a place as any to start for the reader specifically interested in this somewhat narrow topic. The real appeal (as always for the contemporary reader), is in Hofstadter's prose
A thorough examination of America's history of censorship during war-time, and the evolution of the supreme court's conception of our 1st amendment rights. Despite the density and seriousness of the topic, Stone has a somewhat light touch, and manages to mix in fascinating biographies of the many heroes of free speech and association in American history. From Matthew Lyon - a republican senator jailed by the Adams administration under the Sedition Act of 1798, to pacifists imprisoned and censored by Lincoln's administration during the Civil War, to the massive criminal repression of socialists and anarchists like Eugene V. Debs by Wilson in the first World War, McCarthyism, Vietnam era protest, up to the War on Terror.
Despite the gross violations of the Bush administration, it is telling of the forward progression of our civil liberties (as well as the degree to which these liberties have not been secured in the past) that the repressions of the earlier part of the 20th century (particularly the jailing of Debs), could never have an equivalent today (such as the imprisonment of Howard Dean for criticizing the war effort in Iraq).
A delight through and through, as well as a work of tremendous and lasting importance.
's new album the other night is just a pseudonym for my old high school chum...
s
!
