Once again the issue of whether science and religion are 'compatible' has arisen in the science blogosphere.
Jerry Coyne, seconded by
PZ Myers,
Russell Blackford, and
Larry Moran among others, has written a critique of the "accommodationist" position taken by the
National Center for Science Education, the National Academy of Sciences, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Coyne characterizes those organizations' positions as meaning that NCSE "cuddles up to [religion], kisses it, and tells it that everything will be all right." John Wilkins, who AFAIK does not second Coyne's motion, even has
a multiple-choice question on the issue going. This post grew out of
a comment I made there.
I think Coyne has made a surprisingly confused argument against a straw man, and I'll outline why below.
First, let me make a couple of disclaimers. Recall the Panda's Thumb policy regarding contributors (which is currently not visible for some reason). Basically, posts on Panda's Thumb are the views of the post authors and not of some corporate "Panda's Thumb." We all differ on one or more issues, and we argue about them publicly and privately, sometimes with great vigor. This is one of those issues. What I post is from me, not other PT authors.
Second, I am an atheist. On the late (and by some, lamented) Internet Infidels Discussion Board where I was an administrator, my sig said I was 6.5 on the
Dawkins scale on which Dawkins himself laid claim only to a 6. (I'm now
consigliere to the administrators of
The Secular Cafe.)
With that out of the way, I'll first describe one plain fact:
people exist who are both religious (Christian) believers and competent, even distinguished, scientists, in the sense of actually doing standard science in a context like a secular university or industrial laboratory and publishing in the peer reviewed scientific literature. Those people (excluding the presuppositionalists of the AIG, ICR, and Disco 'Tute sort) do not in their scientific work invoke supernatural entities as causal or explanatory variables. If one reads their scientific papers one finds that they address genuine scientific issues without reference to angels, demons, gods, or intelligent designers. Their papers in
Nature and
Science and
Cell are indistinguishable from the papers of scientists who are not religious believers. So it follows that individual scientists can make some sort of accommodation with their religious beliefs
that does not impact their science. It is quite obviously the case that one can be both a religious person and a working and productive scientist: they exist and in at least some cases (Kenneth Miller, Francisco Ayala) flourish in a scientific environment.
The question is what Coyne is arguing against, and there he's confused. Reading
his post one actually sees that he's making a false claim. Let me illustrate it by a representative quotation:
When a professional organization makes such strong statements about the compatibility of science and faith, and ignores or gives but a polite nod to the opposing view, that organization is endorsing a philosophy.
The "strong statements" are apparently such radical claims as this quoted by Coyne from the NAS:
Acceptance of the evidence for evolution can be compatible with religious faith.
...
Many [religious denominations] have issued statements observing that evolution and the tenets of their faiths are compatible.
And then Coyne quotes this from NCSE:
In public discussions of evolution and creationism, we are sometimes told that we must choose between belief in creation and acceptance of the theory of evolution, between religion and science. But is this a fair demand? Must I choose only one or the other, or can I both believe in God and accept evolution? Can I both accept what science teaches and engage in religious belief and practice? This is a complex issue, but theologians, clergy, and members of many religious traditions have concluded that the answer is, unequivocally, yes.
Coyne adds
You can't get much more explicit than this. To those of us who hold contrary views, including the idea that religion is dangerous, this logic sounds like this:
We are sometimes told that we must choose between smoking two packs a day and pursuing a healthy lifestyle. Many cigarette companies, however, hold unequivocally that no such choice is necessary.
How on earth is it a "strong statement ... endorsing a philosophy" to make existence claims that are so easily defended? Those denominational statements exist, just as individual scientists who are religious believers exist. Coyne is here tilting at a windmill of his own making. What "opposing view" is there -- that those denominational statements and individual scientists don't exist? Bah. NAS has not taken a "philosophical" position that I can see. (I pressed Francisco Ayala on this a few months ago. He mentioned that Steven Weinberg was on the drafting committee that wrote the statement. Weinberg is not particularly soft on religion.) The NAS statement points out two plain facts: some good scientists are believers and some denominations do not see a conflict between their version of Christianity and evolution. That Coyne believes that religion is dangerous (a sentiment that I largely share: it can be dangerous to self and society to listen to voices inside one's head or to those whose only claim to authority is a private pipeline to one or another god) is irrelevant, a
non sequitur. The question is whether people can both hold some sorts of religious beliefs and do good science, and as I noted above, that is a plain fact, and it is not
endorsing a philosophical position to observe that they exist.
Then after a bit of diversionary fluff claiming that he "enormously admires" NCSE and its current leaders, Eugenie Scott and Kevin Padian, Coyne specifically attacks NCSE's approach. He writes
The pro-religion stance of the NCSE is offensive and unnecessary -- a form of misguided pragmatism.
Baloney. Pure unadulterated knee-deep baloney. First, of course, NCSE's statements are not
pro-religion; they are restatements of the facts I noted above: Some good scientists have religious beliefs, and some Christian denominations publicly aver that their theological views and science do not conflict. Now, they may be mistaken -- Coyne would say they are -- but that does not say anything about the existence of their claim.
So Coyne has constructed a straw man, that NCSE and NAS and AAAS
endorse particular religious views, and rants against it. He is in this respect not all that different from Larry Caldwell and his wife, who
brought suit against the University of California Museum of Paleontology's and NCSE's
Understanding Evolution site because it claims, like NCSE, AAAS, and NAS, that science and religion
can be compatible, again, a plain statement of fact: those people exist.
I'm one of the foot soldiers in this battle, a sergeant operating in a conservative rural county far from the ethereal heights of the University of Chicago. I've been at it (off and on, mostly on for the last 6 years) for more than 20 years. I published my first article on the political nature of the evolution/religion conflict in 1987. I am engaged at the local and state levels, the former on a weekly basis (search this blog on "Freshwater" for local stuff and see
here for just one example of State BOE stuff). My political experience goes back to 1968, when I was a big city Democratic party ward officer. I have a hell of a lot better view of what's pragmatically necessary and what is effective at the level of the local school board and the local church than Coyne can even imagine. Coyne (and Myers and Moran and Dawkins) are not engaged at that level on anything approaching a regular basis. They lead their congregations from high pulpits. They sit above the choir preaching a message that is disconnected from -- indeed, sometimes antithetical to -- the reality on the ground. They're the generals who argued against air power, courtmartialed Billy Mitchell, and then watched ships sink at Pearl Harbor. Coyne wants to argue philosophy in a political war. That's not a tactic, it's a politically lethal red herring.
I value Coyne's contributions to science and I like
his book a whole lot -- I bought it and I use its arguments and information where they're appropriate. But he's tactically ignorant and apparently doesn't know the nature of the battle on the ground. Dueling OpEds in the NYTimes are not the venue in which this war will be won or lost. Political battles are not won by generals; they're won by foot soldiers on the ground, often in spite of the diversions of the generals. The creationists know that approach; we scientists don't, by and large. They know it's a political war. We haven't done so well at realizing that political wars are won one household, one school board,
one church at a time. NCSE knows that, and knows what it takes on the ground. To win those battles we don't need generals who are ignorant of the nature of the issues on the ground. We need advocates who are not hampered by generals who divert and hamper them with ill-advised philosophical and tactical sermons.
I did a 3-Sunday series of talks on religion, evolution, and morality in a local Protestant church recently. Had I walked in there and opened with "OK, folks, in order to understand and accept evolution as I'll present it today, you have to deconvert" I'd have lost my (overflow) audience in the first five minutes. That would have robbed me of the opportunity to introduce
religious people to the power and breadth of the theory and to describe the misconceptions that the fundamentalist Christians have been feeding children and adults in my community. And that's a losing strategy, Jerry.
237 Comments
John Harshman · 25 April 2009
What you said.
SteveC · 25 April 2009
"On the late (and by some, lamented) Internet Infidels Discussion Board ..."
Hell yeah, it's lamented. Back in the day, it was awesome. For awhile it looked like rantsnraves.org would fill the gap, but the trolls took over there. For awhile, there were some great posters there, PZ was there for awhile, Per Ahlberg(!) was there for awhile. Boro Nut was there. :) But the trolls wrecked the place, and everybody worth reading left, for the most part. I feel bad for Matt, the guy that runs the place. He's a great guy, and the idealistic rules he set up were taken advantage of by the trolls. rantsnraves could have been so much more than a hangout for trolls. Too bad.
James F · 26 April 2009
Hear, hear, Richard! I have argued against this straw man a few times:
Jerry Coyne's blog
Russell Blackford's blog
John Wilkins' blog
Enough of this, I would now like to see Coyne et al. present their opinion about what the AAAS, NAS, and NCSE are actually stating. I'm all for hearing from the loyal opposition, but this line of argument is just a huge fallacy.
Siamang · 26 April 2009
I think you aren't taking the issue on as directly as I think Coyne and Myers are.
"that science and religion can be compatible, again, a plain statement of fact: those people exist."
I think one problem that others are pointing out is that in the text, NCSE neglects to point out that these existent people are a minority within the scientific community... and a small one at that. Further, the NCSE neglects to mention that scientists who think the two are incompatible even exist at all!
To make an analogy, this is like saying "being gay and Republican are compatible; it's a plain statement of fact: those people exist." Well, they do... but I think you've got a thumb on the scale if you are pushing one side of the issue more than the other. And they are.
When the NCSE puts together a document about many different ways to read the Bible:
http://ncseweb.org/religion/how-do-i-read-bible-let-me-count-ways
They're wading into theology. They're attempting to persuade people to read their Bible less literally. They're offering up their interpretation of what the Bible is, what it's for, how to read it, what the ancients decided it was written for... etc.
Now I'm not going to say that it's not politically expedient... it may be. And Hess couches his choices of arguments he makes with plenty of attribution and going out of his way to make it seem like he's presenting nothing but a survey of what others believe without going too far out on a limb asserting any particular thing himself.
But one cannot get around the fact that the NCSE is trying to steer people's faith, not with science, but with religious opinion. No matter the attribution, or that "these people do exist" Hess chose what arguments he presented. He chose which people to trot out as existing. He did not choose your Dawkinses or your Myerses, to be sure. He also didn't trot out any believers that think the literalist view is the proper way to read the Bible. He knows exactly what side of Biblical interpretation he wanted to highlight, and it's the side where the Bible is full of *deeper meanings* than mere literalism.
Now, I may do that as an individual, and indeed I have. I'm an atheist, but I've frequently written online with Christians and given as examples people like Ken Miller. Miller can do some great science education, and he is free to go on about how he sees evolution as being part of the glory of God in his books and lectures.
Just as Dawkins can do the opposite, if he so chooses.
But I'm wondering about the NCSE wading into this NOMA territory. Because to say that science and religion are non-overlapping magesteria, one must carefully define religion in such a way that it makes no claims that ever contradict science. I would argue that six-day-creationism IS an overlapping mageteria with science. It proports to explain exactly the same things science does: by what process did life on earth begin, and when?
Now, I have no problem with science saying it's false. And I have no problem with religious people or religious bodies saying that this isn't a good way to look at their religion. What's weird is when a scientific body puts on a clerical collar and makes a *theological* point on how believers should look at their Bibles.
But to go farther, as Hess at the NCSE does, and quote Cardinal Baronius' "the Bible is intended to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go," is to begin making a theological argument that religion shouldn't intrude on describing the physical world.
My problem with NOMA is that it's essentially a theological redefining of religion down to something that religion may not agree with: a territorial and philosophical limitation. It's like them saying they know what "proper religion" is, and it's a religion that knows its place, and never makes a testable or falsifyable claim about the physical world. I'm fine with theologians making that argument. I'm fine with individuals including scientists making that argument. I'm not so fine with scientific bodies or scientific advocate groups making that argument. Because essentially it's a religious argument.
Now you may think strategically, footsoldiers and all... one needs to make nice-nice with church groups. And that may be the case. I say make those alliances, but leave the theology to them.... link to the Clergy Letter Project, and Darwin Sunday... but let the believers push the theology away from literalism and just stick to the science.
Thoughts?
Reed A. Cartwright · 26 April 2009
Good post. I'm sure that this is not the last of it on PT. I see an exchange of posts in the near future.
Siamang · 26 April 2009
This whole affair reminds me of when Stephen Hawking met Pope John Paul II. Hawking writes how the Pope informed him that he could study anything that happened after the Big Bang, but nothing before it, for that was the instant of Creation and was God's domain. Hawking wrote that he was glad the Pope didn't know that he was working on that at that very moment!
That was an arrogant and fruitless proscription for the Pontiff to make. And Hawking didn't accede to his request. (Popes reserve the right to limit scientific inquiry in orbital dynamics, cosmology, biomedical research... etc... every few years or so.)
As out of place as it is for Popes to decide what cosmologists should and should not study, similarly it is out of place for science organizations to tell people how to read their bibles. The Pope does not constrain science, nor should science organizations limit religion to its most deistic and non-overlapping forms.
I will admit that compatibilism prefers deism. And as such, I'm sure every science education advocate in the land would prefer a deist church to the ones we nevertheless have. But it is not religion's job to take marching orders from scientists, nor is it science organizations' job to tell people to get more deistic lest they get their pet beliefs trampled.
Why doesn't the NCSE re-form as a Faith and Science organization like Templeton, and bring on a crew of believers who can make faith statements ingenuously?
Wheels · 26 April 2009
People already know that a lot of religious figures have a beef with evolution, and some of those figures make it seem as though "evoltutionists" are atheists, non-believers, Secular-Darwin-Marx-Dawkins-Stalin-Hitlerists or whatever. The entire point of the anti-evolution movement, their whole message, is that evolution is incompatible with religious faith (implied to be the only correct religious faith). THAT is what's being addressed by the NCSE here, and I don't think it's inappropriate for an organization devoted to the furtherance of science education. In fact, I think it's highly topical.
Wheels · 26 April 2009
What I rambled on too long about, basically, is that the people to whom the NCSE are reaching out already know that there are religious people who reject evolution and scientists who reject religion. It's basically trying to ensure that people don't come away with the impression that there are only those two, polar extremes from which to choose.
RBH · 26 April 2009
FL · 26 April 2009
Siamang · 26 April 2009
Hi Wheels,
I take your point, and I don't argue that it's not a political message that is needed.
But what I would say about it is that personally, I'm a nonbeliever. If I were to attempt to give religious arguments to my neighbor about why he should read the Bible differently in order to square church with his visit to the Grand Canyon, that would be in effect a lie on my part. I don't care how the heck he reads his Bible, and I could not presume to give him religious instruction, because I do not believe in his religion.
When i have online discussions with Christians about the science of evolution, I DO point out that there are excellent scientists who work with evolution and are Christian believers. I even point people to Ken Miller's books. But I shrink from telling them the proper way to read their Bible. Because, honestly, I don't think there IS a "proper" way, and I don't mean that in a derogatory way. Sure, for me, I don't think there's anything for me in there that I believe. But also, speaking culturally, there's something about religious texts that are to be approached in many different ways... so "properness" doesn't enter into it.
Anyway, I don't tell people how they should read their bibles. I wouldn't presume to.
If there are people who are believers, and they honestly have a point of view on how to approach Christianity from their spiritual point of view... let them do that from their own organization, and not put the stamp of science on it.
And if you were too rambly in your reply, what the heck was I ??!?! ;-)
386sx · 26 April 2009
FUG · 26 April 2009
I don't mind a scientific organization endorsing a philosophical viewpoint. Really, it's impossible for a scientific organization to NOT endorse a philosophical viewpoint, as the origins of the scientific method are grounded in philosophy, and it has its own philosophy.
Christianity is not hard to resolve with evolution -- there are rationalizations one can make to accept them both. Even more importantly, as science only makes claims of the natural world, and does so better than any other philosophy to date, it is a theistic problem, and not a scientific problem, to resolve the conflict between the universe one lives in and the God one believes in. But, given the state of science education, it's understandable that a scientific organization would start taking a stand on biblical matters, as biblical organizations have started taking a stand on scientific matters. The stand taken by NCSE is so far from a stand, I don't understand the objection. Specifically, the line opening the last paragraph in "How Do I Read the Bible?" :
"Rather, the Bible can be read as a record of one particular people's developing moral relationship with the God in whom they placed their trust."
The keyword is "can". It's not a stand in the least. Rather, it's pointing out what others have said, and stating that one may choose to read the bible in such a way that it does not make claims about the natural world. I don't know what scientist would object to that -- it's encouraging individuals to stop looking for supernatural explanations to understand natural phenomena.
To me, the battle is not as political as it is philosophical. Attempts at applying the scientific method to metaphysical problems are limited, and in some sense, silly. There are a lot of assumptions one makes in using the scientific method that don't always apply to all philosophical questions, and recognizing the limits to the scientific method is paramount to understanding it. And without understanding of the scientific method, it seems to me that the scientists would be feeding the flame of indignant Christians who claim that scientists make the same faith-based assumptions as they, only in different directions. (which is also false, but it doesn't hurt to know what you're talking about, especially in something as political as this mess of a battle)
Russell Blackford · 26 April 2009
jkc · 26 April 2009
Tim · 26 April 2009
Thanks for this post.
As a former high school biology teacher in a very religious, conservative town, I understand the battle on the ground all too well. Too many people are convinced that accepting evolution means accepting atheism. Some of them hear that at church, some of them hear that from prominent scientists.
That was also my understanding, until the age of 17. I'd taken Honors Biology and AP Biology, passed the AP test, and still didn't accept evolution because of religious reasons. But an AP Environmental Science teacher, one of may favorite teachers, and also a man I happened to know was religious, decided he had enough time in the class to discuss evolution. He told us that he accepted evolution, and that it was not a threat to his faith. With this new understanding--that it was possible to both believe in God and accept evolution, I was able to look at the evidence for evolution in an unbiased way--and quickly accept it.
I'm not sure if my efforts as a high school biology teacher led anyone to accept evolution that otherwise wouldn't have. I do know that, because of my efforts, I now have a number of friends who either accept evolution or who, although they don't accept evolution, accept that evolution can be compatible with religion.
In a country where public acceptance of evolution is as low as it is, that's a start.
Dave Luckett · 26 April 2009
Jesus, Russell, every intellectual position on religion is a highly contentious philosophical issue that many philosophers would dispute. Philosophers are pins in a world full of balloons.
But what philosophers would argue among themselves is irrelevant, no matter what their distaste pro or con any position. They'll never come to a consensus anyway - or if they did, it'd be the first in three thousand years.
No, it's what working scientists think about religion, and it's what the general public thinks about it. If they think that religious faith is compatible with good science, and prove it by having such a faith and doing good science (in the former case) and supporting it (in the latter case), then it is compatible, and you and I and everyone else from P Z Myers and Richard Dawkins on down can put a sock in it. Who are we to tell the people on the ground different? Some sort of Authority? Don't know about you, but nobody appointed me to be one.
And - here's the point - why should we tell them that, when we would be merrily pissing in our own well? For I can't think of a better way of getting the general public of the US off-side with evolution than to tell them you've got to be an atheist to accept it.
mrg · 26 April 2009
There is a battle going on over science education and a battle going on over religion. To those fighting the battle over religion, the battle over science education simply rides on its coattails.
To those fighting the battle over science education, the battle over religion is working at cross purposes. The opposition has a totally ridiculous case in the science education battle, so they are only too happy to turn the battle into one over religion -- which can be argued endlessly and gives their side a weight in the court of public opinion that it otherwise shouldn't have.
I'm an apatheist -- religions neither particularly interest nor bother me. I don't even really care if people want to bash religions, the religious can take care of themselves in that battle, ya'll can feel free to fight.
But as far as I'm concerned, the sciences have as much to do with religion as does, say, pro sports, and there's no logical necessity for the sciences to bother with the matter. If scientists want to attack or embrace religion on their own time, fine, but that's a private matter.
Early in the US Civil War, Secretary of State Seward had the idea that the USA should start a
war with Britain to unify North and South against a common enemy. Mr. Lincoln replied: "One war at a time, Billy."
MrG http://www.vectorsite.net
Jack Krebs · 26 April 2009
Thanks very much for writing that - I think you're right both about NCSE's position and about the practial view from the trenches.
Peter Henderson · 26 April 2009
Frank J · 26 April 2009
Frank J · 26 April 2009
mrg · 26 April 2009
mrg · 26 April 2009
Philrt · 26 April 2009
Can this discussion continue without the ad hominems? I think there is an important pragmatic/philosophical issue that we have to deal with. I personally think the people who hold the 'compatibility' argument are deluded. But people like Ken Miller etc, show that despite their delusions, they can make good contributions. My memory of Coyne's article wasn't so much that NCSE shouldn't be stating that people are able to hold religious and scientific ideas compatible, but rather that they appear to be squashing that there are people holding the dissenting view (not sure if they are really doing that or not). Do both or stay out of the argument is what I got out of his article. I would hope that people that hold the science/religion compatibility position would be able to handle comments from people like me who would say "I think you're a nut, but I respect you as a person and a scientist who has made great contributions". But I fear this is a case of the religious hypersensitivity issue again. Thou shalt not criticize religion, even if you do it respectfully.
Another thing that bothers me about this is there seems to be an implication that to 'win the war' we must compromise the truth a little. Make those slightly nutty ones happy, as long as they accept evolution, then everyone can be happy. I don't agree with that approach. I can respect someone, be polite to them, even if I think they are a little nutty. They should be grown up enough to accept that, else they don't deserve my respect. I know that I can certainly handle someone thinking I'm off base on a subject as long as they treat me with respect while doing it. The religious should be capable of the same.
Paul Burnett · 26 April 2009
Paul Burnett · 26 April 2009
Ron Okimoto · 26 April 2009
The NCSE may be politically accomodating, but I doubt that applies to the NAS or the AAAS. What else can they do?
People are just People. There are extremists and people that lose track of the real issues on both sides. When you start living in a reality that places you on par with what you think that you are against you likely end up like Flew. When you have looped back far enough to be staring your opposition in the face, using their same types of "evidence" it is likely easier to stumble and step over to the other side.
The plain and simple fact is that there is a sliding scale. Everyone finds the place for their own opinions. The trouble is that the scale isn't flat and linear, but more of a circle that loops back onto itself in some dimensions. It is evident that the atheists that vehemently argue that there is no god or gods end up using the same type of stupid arguments of their opposition. They could stick to the science, but they end up realizing that they can't get to where they want to go with it. They can nick off bits and pieces and rag on the incompetent, but they have to face reality. If anyone could demonstrate what they claim why isn't that person world famous and known to everyone? Where is that killer, rational, and scientifically validated argument? If others are just blind, why are there so many agnostics and more rational atheists that are not convinced in organizations like the NAS and AAAS?
That should give them pause, but it doesn't seem to matter. Where does that same type of irrational thought confront us everyday? Look at the Intelligent design creationist scam. They ended up depending on junk that had never amounted to anything in the history of science. The extreme atheists would end up in the same boat if they wanted to teach that there is no god. They could nit pick peoples theology, but none of their arguments have amounted to what they require, ever. If they have, they should be able to demonstrate it without using the bogus reasoning of their opposition.
Science just has limits. No one can wave a magic wand and get it to do something that it was never designed to do whether you believe in a god or not.
Paul Burnett · 26 April 2009
FL · 26 April 2009
Stanton · 26 April 2009
smijer · 26 April 2009
Stanton · 26 April 2009
Michael Behe is a supporter of Intelligent Design. Furthermore, he has done absolutely no experimentation or even research to support or even demonstrate any of his claims and counter-claims.
So, tell us again why we should take seriously a former scientist who has not done any lab work for over 2, maybe 3 decades, and who is actively collaborating with an anti-science organization?
Mary Hunter · 26 April 2009
Somebody explain for me how Christianity and evolution can be compatible. I grew up Christian and later decided the stories just didn't make sense. Jesus had to come down and die for the sin Adam & Eve committed. No Garden of Eden , no sin, no need for a savior. If we evolved there couldn't have been a Garden of Eden, so where does the savior thing come in? This is the question most often avoided by people trying to compromise religion & evolution.
I don't deny the value of the philosophy of Christianity, but it isn't new with Christianity nor is it exclusive, but the essence of Christianity was the death and the need for the death of a savior. I just can't see how these two positions can be reconciled. If you know how please explain it to me.
Jordan · 26 April 2009
You hit the nail on the head, Richard.
It might also be worth pointing out the accommodationist perspective when it comes to Christian theology, particularly in light of some of the atheists here who insist that evolution and Christianity are incompatible. Many Christians believe God spoke to the authors of Scripture using the common imagery and language of their day, including outdated views on cosmological and biological origins. This is hardly a problem for those non-concordist Christians who believe God's primary motivation in inspiring Scripture was spiritual in nature rather than scientific. This accommodationist hermeneutic allows Christians to be both devoted to Christ AND capable of practicing good science, and has been formalized since the time of the Galileo affair, if not before (Augustine's writings also come to mind).
Jordan · 26 April 2009
To add to my last comment, a good book to read on the subject of accommodationism in Christian theology would be "Evolutionary Creation", by Dr. Denis Lamoureux. I also recommend Gordon Glover's "Beyond the Firmament." You might try checking them out, Mary.
John Kwok · 26 April 2009
Philrt · 26 April 2009
When did this become discussion about fundamentalists? I'm confused, I was talking about religious people who think evolution is compatible with their religious belief. I have never met a fundamentalist that was not profoundly stupid, ignorant or dishonest. I have no problem withholding my respect from people like that.
Frank J · 26 April 2009
John Kwok · 26 April 2009
Mike Elzinga · 26 April 2009
Frank J · 26 April 2009
Wheels · 26 April 2009
I think you're still stuck in the mindset that the NCSE is telling people how to interpret the Bible. They're not doing that: they're pointing out that many people interpret it differently, so that it doesn't conflict with evolution. That there are faithful Christians out there who also accept evolution is the focal point, because some people hear from their religious leaders that there are no such people and that no such position is even possible. Let's say there are three people sitting in a bar, discussing economic policies, Dudge, Guy, and Buddy. Dude is a strict, laissez-faire Capitalist, Guy is a dyed-in-the-wool Communist. Those two are always going at each other's throats, denouncing positions and arguing most vehemently that their system is superior and incompatible with the other's. Buddy points out to Dude and Guy that many countries can successfully integrate both socialism and capitalism into a working system, it doesn't have to be an either/or false dilemma. Buddy isn't necessarily advocating that Dude and Guy mix their systems, just pointing out that it's not impossible to accommodate both in the same state. I think that's what the NCSE is doing here. And you think the NCSE is? I don't think the NCSE is "putting the stamp of science" on any particular religious interpretation (that'd be odd, seeing as its prominent members are mostly atheist). As I said, they're just combating the venomous rhetoric used by the likes of Phillip Johnson and his ilk, who say you CAN'T be Christian and accept evolution. It is simply a counter to their lies, not an endorsement. And that brings up another point I feel needs addressing: there's apparently a careless conflation assumed in this discussion by some, that the topic is whether "religion and evolution" are incompatible: religion is an extremely broad category of stuff. I know there are Christian, Islamic, and Jewish sects that take issue with aspects of biology but is Buddhism at odds with evolution? Hinduism has several Creation accounts, and the anti-evolutionist stripe Vedic Creationism might be largely confined to some of those within the Hare Krishna movement. --------------------------------------------------------- Is it objectionable because it doesn't present a conflict between a religious mindset and the "rational" mindset that should allow one to accept the evidence for evolution? You just feel that the two systems (religiousness and rationalism) are incompatible, and that one person claiming to accept parts of both at once is being dishonest, so it's objectionable? I'm sorry, but I really am not seeing the conflict here. A religious person cannot accept the evidence that leads us to conclude that evolution happens? Does that mean a religious person cannot accept the evidence which leads us to conclude that the planets orbit the sun, the sun is just another star in a sea of billions, instead of being a big light that circles the flat Earth to make night and day? Are you saying that a religious person (other than a Deist) cannot honestly accept scientific evidence as a convincing argument for something that may not even conflict with their own religious beliefs? That sounds ridiculous to me. The NCSE isn't saying that it's "philosophically correct." Perhaps not having to deal "the special circumstances of American religiosity" so much has misled you (I doubt it), but as I keep saying, there are many people (anti-evolutionist and their opposition) who come across as saying that you can't be religious and accept sound science. The NCSE is just providing an antidote to that false dilemma.
Wheels · 26 April 2009
The Curmudgeon · 26 April 2009
My own humble blog is a minor player in The Controversy. Right from the start I took the position that I would neither promote atheism nor oppose religion. I treat them as irrelevant to science. The only issue that I care about is that scientists must be free to pursue their work and to teach their subjects without political or ecclesiastical censorship. (One must oppose theocracy, of course.) The flip side is that religion should be free of interference from science, but that's always been the case so it's a non-issue.
As to science-religion incompatibilities:
Point 1. We can never say that evolution is consistent with everyone's understanding of his religion, but this shouldn't be necessary. Virtually all religions, even the most stridently creationist of them, have accommodated their faith to, for example, the solar system. It's possible to interpret any scriptural passage so that it doesn't conflict with science. But it's irrelevant whether people do this, unless we're living in a theocracy. This isn't a theocracy, so this whole "incompatibilities" problem is unimportant. At least to me.
Point 2. Everyone can -- and should -- insist on the freedom to pursue science separate and apart from his or anyone's beliefs about religion. And vice versa.
Those who would deny anyone the freedom described in Point 2 are the problem; but this is an issue of political freedom, not faith. So merely by insisting on freedom one can avoid all the tiresome debates about incompatibilities. At least that's how I play it.
John Kwok · 26 April 2009
RBH -
This paragraph of yours strongly resonates with me:
"I value Coyne’s contributions to science and I like his book a whole lot – I bought it and I use its arguments and information where they’re appropriate. But he’s tactically ignorant and apparently doesn’t know the nature of the battle on the ground. Dueling OpEds in the NYTimes are not the venue in which this war will be won or lost. Political battles are not won by generals; they’re won by foot soldiers on the ground, often in spite of the diversions of the generals. The creationists know that approach; we scientists don’t, by and large. They know it’s a political war. We haven’t done so well at realizing that political wars are won one household, one school board, one church at a time. NCSE knows that, and knows what it takes on the ground. To win those battles we don’t need generals who are ignorant of the nature of the issues on the ground. We need advocates who are not hampered by generals who divert and hamper them with ill-advised philosophical and tactical sermons."
Coyne, Dawkins and Myers, among others, need to remind themselves that they ought to change their tactics, lest they are interpreted solely as "preaching to the choir" of their fellow co-religionists (Ironically, I find militant atheism to be nearly as intolerant of contrary religious views as other, rather "Fundamentalist" versions of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and other well-known religious faiths.). Moreover, by their very words and deeds, they are giving
those who embrace Evolution Denial, ample literary and philosophical grounds to explain just how "believing in evolution" means automatically "Denial of GOD(S)".
Appreciatively yours,
John
fnxtr · 26 April 2009
mrg · 26 April 2009
harold · 26 April 2009
John Kwok · 26 April 2009
Stanton · 26 April 2009
John Kwok · 26 April 2009
harold,
I endorse your comment about the "quality of Coyne's argument". Indeed, let me go further and remind you that, in another, similar PT thread, I observed that I fundamentally don't see a dime's worth of difference between PZ Myers's outrageous behavior and William Dembski's.
Appreciatively yours,
John
Lynn Jemison · 26 April 2009
Richard,
Thank you for the fresh perspective. For improving science education, the political and cultural dynamics on the ground are what matter most, not grand perspectives and absolutes.
Sirius
FUG · 26 April 2009
Pete Dunkelberg · 26 April 2009
Pete Dunkelberg · 26 April 2009
I meant to add that anti-compatibilists are arguing from definitions, often tacit. This makes them impervious to the mere empirical reality that science and religion are compatible for many people, and why not? You do no honor to the creator by refusing to believe the creation.
Evidently, the normal people who are scientific and religious do not hold the views that anti-compatibilitists insist they must. tsk tsk
Dave C · 26 April 2009
I think that it's simply a plain fact--in the U.S. at least--that if we have a battle between science and God for the "hearts and minds" of the general public, science will almost certainly lose that battle. Organizations like the NCSE recognize this and tailor their message accordingly. So, while I don't begrudge people like Coyne and PZ their opinions, I think it's counter-productive to call out the NCSE on this particular point.
Pete Dunkelberg · 26 April 2009
When there are talking snakes in the story,
That's a hint that it's allegory.
Jordan · 26 April 2009
FUG · 26 April 2009
a lurker · 26 April 2009
The ivory tower general's "strategy" as the World War I strategy of charging machine gun over long stretches of open ground -- ain't going to work. Not now, not ever. Is it such a crime to want to win the "war"? People toss out the term "reality-based community" a lot these days. But ignoring political reality is no less irrational than ignoring biological reality. Pointing out that a strategy does not work is not accommodation, it is a patriotic duty.
But contrary to the implication made by fundamentalists and some atheists like P.Z., this pragmatism is not a mere dishonest ploy. I have seen NCSE's Eugenie Scott speak. She made utterly no secret of her lack of belief in the supernatural. She is certainly not saying you have become a non-literalist religious believer. How could she? She is, by admission, not one. Indeed the NCSE, like PT contributors, is made up of people with differing beliefs.
Maybe a good way to describe that the NCSE does is to inform people of their options: these are some of the things that real people believe about the convergence religious belief and evolution. Which of these options you accept is your own affair.
Not only is it good pragmatic strategy to inform people that that there exists centuries of practice by various branches of Christianity to not to take much of the Bible literally, but it is 100% factual as well. Indeed a well-educated person should be aware of that. It is also completely truthful to point out that insisting on the either/or model as fundamentalists do will contribute to more people becoming atheists. (And heck, I might point out that if one accepts the well-supported and indeed obvious-true hypothesis that Genesis was made by editing together of previously separate scriptures it is very obvious that the editor knew they were literally contradictory but cared enough for them all to bring them together.)
Now which of the options is the true one is not for the schools to decide based on the First Amendment. That amendment does not exist for the sake of any particular religious belief (or lack of it) but rather for the sake of this concept call liberty and the pragmatic realization that the use of laws, soldiers, and police to "correct" the religious beliefs of others is destructive.
Of course if a certain belief system can't survive in a free and open society where people know their options, then so be it. I won't shed a tear.
Aureola Nominee, FCD · 26 April 2009
I see that renowned liar John Kwok is still infesting The Panda's Thumb. With friends like these, who needs enemies?
a lurker · 26 April 2009
Stanton · 26 April 2009
Stacy · 26 April 2009
Dean Wentworth · 26 April 2009
Zmidponk · 26 April 2009
I think much of the difference of opinion on this comes from two different meanings taken from the word 'compatible'. The people, like Richard B. Hoppe, who argue that religion and science are compatible are content to say this is so because there are some folk who are both religious and good scientists - so both conditions are present. However, people like PZ Myers say this is not enough to say they are 'compatible', as what's happening is that these people are utterly ignoring and/or forgetting about their religion when doing their science, and utterly ignoring and/or forgetting about ther science when 'doing their religion' (carrying out their religious rites, praying, talking about their religion, etc).
To use the same analogy I used on PZ Myer's blog - it's like successfully setting up a PC in a dual-boot with Linux and Windows, and then saying this proves Linux and Windows are compatible with each other. They're not, really, but you can use both on the same PC - just not at the precise same moment.
Marcus Williams · 26 April 2009
Richard, you seem to have entirely missed the point. Coyne and others aren't arguing that you should tell churches that religion is incompatible with science. What they're saying is that the NCSE shouldn't leave people with the false impression that every reasonable person thinks the opposite is true. The NCSE should instead stay out of the issue of religion and simply present the facts, or if they want to make claims about people who think religion and science are compatible, they shouldn't imply that every scientist or religious leader is in agreement on this issue.
You are setting up your own straw man by characterizing Coyne's position as saying to a church, “OK, folks, in order to understand and accept evolution as I’ll present it today, you have to deconvert”. No one is making that claim, and obviously we should use tact, but to ignore the potential conflicts or to make it seem that they don't exist is insulting to the intelligence of your audience. Science advocacy organizations like NCSE should just lay out the facts and scientific evidence and let people decide if they conflict with their own supernatural beliefs.
Jordan · 26 April 2009
FUG · 26 April 2009
Dean Wentworth · 26 April 2009
FL · 26 April 2009
RBH · 26 April 2009
Stanton · 26 April 2009
Pete Dunkelberg · 26 April 2009
FL, by "Bible" you mean your personal views projected onto it. Do you support slavery? If not, "show me, directly from your own Bible, exactly how you supposedly resolved this particular incompatibility".
Dean Wentworth · 26 April 2009
FUG,
I agree that the example I gave would most likely be a lost cause; in addition to unshakable dogmatic faith such a student would probably be regurgitating pseudoscientific arguments that would take volumes to refute.
Your idea of presenting this as a philosophical rather than overtly religious issue seems workable. In all honesty, though, I'd be surprised if more than a handful of creationists could be "brought around" by any amount of reasoning. Of course, optimism has never been my strong suit.
FL · 26 April 2009
SWT · 26 April 2009
CryingofLot49 · 26 April 2009
"I call bullshit on that!" - Lite from "Repo Man"
Mr. Hoppe, why the "friendly" fire instead of some real debate?
Despite all your admirable work, this sounds ONLY like you were caught resetting the odometer and want to blame it on the person who caught you.
To be plain, it's bullshit, and we should move on with positive steps to accomodate the full range of people supporting good science and science education.
Cut this stuff out and acknowledge the criticism and make appropriate changes,
Stacy · 26 April 2009
Nice dodge of Pete Dunkleberg's question FL.
Stanton · 26 April 2009
RBH · 26 April 2009
Paul Burnett · 26 April 2009
FL · 26 April 2009
Jordan · 26 April 2009
John Kwok · 26 April 2009
John Kwok · 26 April 2009
Paul Burnett · 26 April 2009
John Kwok · 26 April 2009
I just posted this over at PZ's latest discussion thread, and am posting it again here, should he decide to delete it:
PZ,
Spare me your notions of credibility with regards to your “defense” of NCSE. Your inane remarks are similar in tone to Philip Johnson’s admission that Intelligent Design is not yet a valid scientific theory.
When you decide to show that you’re capable of religious tolerance, then maybe your remarks will be taken seriously (And to be perfectly candid, I felt this way about you long before you decided to give me the boot over at Pharyngula.). As far as I am concerned, there’s not really a dime’s worth of difference between your outrageous behavior (e. g. Cracker Incident from last summer) and William Dembski’s.
Respectfully yours,
John Kwok
Stanton · 26 April 2009
Frank J · 26 April 2009
Paul Burnett · 26 April 2009
Frank J · 26 April 2009
RBH · 26 April 2009
Moderation Note
We are not going to rehearse John Kwok's banning from Pharyngula here, folks.
Thanks.
RBH
John Kwok · 26 April 2009
This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.
John Kwok · 26 April 2009
James F · 26 April 2009
Notagod · 26 April 2009
What part of some god-idea created everything in six days then took a nap, is compatible with science?
If the christians are opposed to reading their bible literally then they are simply making their own religion to suit whatever the current desire is. In what way is that compatible with science. I see no value in aligning science with emotional flip-flopping religious dogma. Religion is a thorn in the side of a desire to have a society that values honesty, and reasoned judgment.
Compromising science in an attempt to appease the christian bullies isn't helpful. It is possible to construct a religion that is compatible with evolution and/or science however, it is disingenuous to allow christians to think that christianity is such a religion. That tactic is very similar to the intelligent design pushers neglecting to name a designer.
FUG · 26 April 2009
Mike Elzinga · 26 April 2009
Jordan · 26 April 2009
Pete Dunkelberg · 26 April 2009
Russell Blackford · 26 April 2009
Pete Dunkelberg · 26 April 2009
Mary, I'm sure you see now that Christian religion takes many forms. And there are diverse churches. Even long ago Christian leaders warned against foolish literalism. And today thousands warn against ID brand creationism.
Like FL you may have been taught that only one rather stilted theology was Christian, the folks in the church across the street would go to Hell and all that. But it just isn't so.
Chris Ho-Stuart · 26 April 2009
Larry Moran has since given a very angry -- justifiably angry -- reply to this article, here: (Sandwalk: Foot Soldiers and Generals). It made me think.
I'm generally recognized as an "accomodationalist". My blog is now proudly labeled "Milquetoast Atheist"; a label proposed for me by PZ Myers, who disagreed with me on these matters in the past. Larry Moran and I have also disagreed on the topic before, so normally, you'd expect me to be on Richard Hoppe's side.
Not with this article, I'm not.
There's disagreement on the consistency of science and religion. The existence of religious scientists doesn't resolve it. Whatever ones position on the potential for accommodation and how consistent or not that is, this is a debate that should not be swept under the rug.
The great irony of the "accomodation" position is that much too often those who supposedly adopt an accommodating view with religion end up being the ones who are trying to make people who disagree with them stop talking about it! That is as unaccomodating as all get out! And I won't sign on to that, at all.
Contra Coyne, I don't think there's a strong necessary incompatibility. I could spell out what I mean, and why, but it's a detail. Far more importantly: I don't want Coyne to stop disagreeing with me, as loudly and as often as he likes.
The contrast between generals and foot soldiers is completely invalid. Hoppe is trying to suggest that it is only the accomodationalists are really at working directly on the education issues. As an accomodationalist myself I say: that is insupportable and insulting.
Pierce R. Butler · 26 April 2009
The core conflict here is not between evolution and christianism, it's between science and religion.
The latter depends on faith, the former on testing and revision of hypotheses. The two can only exist in one mind by compartmentalization (including relegation of "the divine" to gaps and edges of present knowledge).
The intellectually honest, if not politically advantageous, reaction to this dichotomy is the approach taken by talkorigins.org - declare neutrality and provide links to the full spectrum of discussion. Jerry Coyne (remember him?) is fully justified in calling out NCSE for cherrypicking one subset of this debate (zimzum 'n' all).
Richard B. Hoppe is remiss in distorting Coyne's perspective as well, painting him and the "New Atheists" as silly ivory-tower dilettantes. Two words: gratuitously absurd.
A question, RBH: if not for Dawkins, Myers, Coyne, Moran, and their ilk, you (& NCSE & even PandasThumb) would be at the extreme end of the religion/science conflict. Is that really the ground you self-professed moderates want to hold?
Wheels · 26 April 2009
Scarlet Letter · 26 April 2009
Richard B. Hoppe says
"So it follows that individual scientists can make some sort of accommodation with their religious beliefs that does not impact their science."
However, Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers, Russell Blackford, and Larry Moran among others, are not criticizing individual scientists; they are criticizing the accommodationist position taken by the National Center for Science Education, the National Academy of Sciences, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
RBH · 26 April 2009
Dave Luckett · 26 April 2009
FL · 26 April 2009
mrg · 26 April 2009
J.J.E. · 26 April 2009
Notagod · 26 April 2009
Jordan,
I've already answered your question, if a christian doesn't take their bible literally they are just making up whatever they want to apply at the time, which often will contradict what they applied earlier. Also, the christian bible states that not one word of it is to be changed and that it is the word of their god-idea.
Mix and match as you see fit but don't claim to then have a position of authority. You are just guessing.
"deeper spiritual insight?"
Haha, that is funny :) Christians have something deeper but it isn't insight.
Stanton · 26 April 2009
Pierce R. Butler · 26 April 2009
Mike Elzinga · 26 April 2009
Chris Ho-Stuart · 26 April 2009
RBH · 26 April 2009
J.J.E. · 26 April 2009
Stanton · 26 April 2009
Wheels · 26 April 2009
Mike Elzinga · 26 April 2009
Wesley R. Elsberry · 26 April 2009
FL obviously is unfamiliar with this page.
Mike · 26 April 2009
Russell Blackford · 26 April 2009
Dave, I'm glad you understand that I'm only asking the NCSE to be neutral. But it now seems that you want me, as an individual, to keep quiet and hide my view that there are arguments against religion based on, shall we say, the difficulty of squaring orthodox monotheistic views with the picture of the world that we're getting from science.
Are you seriously suggesting that people who argue against religion should stop putting those arguments? Are you, perhaps, suggesting that we should stop arguing against religion at all? The second is a lot to ask of those of us who think that there is social value in challenging the authority of religion. If you accept that, the first is asking atheists to conduct the debate with one hand tied behind their backs. You are asking us not to mention some of our most powerful arguments. Do you really want to ask that of us? Don't you think that's a bit unreasonable?
Come to think of it, some very strange standards of reasonableness are being applied in this debate. It's somehow unreasonable for me to ask the NCSE (a semi-official science body) and, more particularly, official bodies such as the NAS to be neutral about theism, atheism, etc. But it's somehow reasonable to ask me, as a private individual, not to express my views or not to argue for them with the full range of arguments available to me.
Individuals do not have to be neutral. Ken Miller gets to say what he thinks and to argue for it. But the converse is that Jerry Coyne also gets to say what he thinks and to argue for it. So do I.
But an organisation that represents both Jerry Coyne AND Ken Miller should not support the position of one over that of the other. I think that's reasonable and fair, and I really don't know what to say if you understand it but still think I'm saying something unreasonable. Jeez, I've even gone out of my way to acknowledge that I just might be wrong about some of this at the end of the day, and that issues of political expediency might trump everything else. I don't see any of my critics (well, except Taner Edis) showing similar humility or objectivity.
Wheels, I've answered so many people on so many blogs in the last couple of days that it's getting hard for me to keep track. If my answers to Dave don't cover something important that you've raised, you'll just have to ask me again and I'll get to it if I can. Like others, I do have a life outside the blogosphere and can't do this full-time; so bear with me if I'm not following every comment on every blog where there this debate is currently going on.
Wesley R. Elsberry · 26 April 2009
J.J.E. · 26 April 2009
Mike Elzinga · 26 April 2009
Dean Wentworth · 26 April 2009
For what it's worth I looked up FL's links regarding slavery and the bible.
They basically boil down to the argument that the ancient world was a kinder, gentler place where slaves weren't really slaves in the ante-bellum South sense.
The quasi-free status of ancient slaves and humane treatment by their "employers" explains why Spartacus could only get 120,000 or so to join him in the Third Servile War. Once the rebellion was crushed, 6,000 survivors of the final battle were crucified along the Appian Way as an object lesson to other "laborers."
Those were the days of wine and roses all right.
James F · 26 April 2009
J.J.E. · 26 April 2009
Wesley R. Elsberry · 26 April 2009
Russell,
Your argument appears to me to be completely generic, that science advocacy organizations should avoid saying anything other than things completely in the domain of science. After all, for any issue that isn't completely within science, there will be experts ready to enumerate points of difference; that isn't unique to religious antievolution. And I didn't see anything to indicate that you were treating religious antievolution as a special case. So are science advocacy organizations supposed to shut up already when it comes to any public policy issue? We know from experience here on PT that even advocating funding of research through NSF and NIH is a contentious public policy issue that economists and political science people would consider to naturally be their turf. Should science advocacy organizations leave it up to economists and political science people to convince the government that funding scientific research is a public good, and stick solely to discussing the science only?
J.J.E. · 27 April 2009
J.J.E. · 27 April 2009
Wheels · 27 April 2009
James F · 27 April 2009
J.J.E. · 27 April 2009
Mike Elzinga · 27 April 2009
Wheels · 27 April 2009
Besides which, if you read the link in Coyne's blog cited for that quote, it was taken from an explanation of a continuum of stances regarding science, philosophy, and religion. Those two were specifically cited as examples of "materialist evolutionists," there were also cited examples for YECs, OECs, Progressive Cs, Theistic Es, etc. It's not a "dismissive" description at all, it just makes a point. No, I got that. I'm arguing that your opinions on what they're doing and how they should "fix" it are misguided.
Wesley R. Elsberry · 27 April 2009
Wesley R. Elsberry · 27 April 2009
Chris Ho-Stuart · 27 April 2009
- I have nothing to say about religion; let's stick to the topic, which is science.
- These standards should be based on science, which is inconsistent with religion.
- There's no conflict between science and religion properly understood.
- These standards are based on science as practiced by scientists with many different views on religion.
This is not a complete list; it is meant be representative examples of possible tactics. In my humble opinion, tactic #1 is an excellent tactic for an independent educational outreach on science, but it is no tactic at all in the context of popular disputes on education where the question of religion cannot be avoided. Suggestions that the NSCE should be neutral in the sense of avoiding saying anything on the subject of religion are (IMO) naïve. In my humble opinion, tactic #2 is counter-productive for this particular circumstance as well. It's a good tactic for independent public advocacy of reason – though of course those who are religious will disagree. It doesn't work as a position statement for an organization which includes individuals with a common commitment to science but diverse views on the reasonableness of religion, and it is ineffective and divisive at a public meeting on standards, as it alienates many of those who are on the side of good science standards. It seems to me that the critics of the NCSE, who accuse them of making religious claims, see them as making something like statement number 3. The solution – if one is needed – is certainly not to go with number 1. It seems to me that the supporters of the NCSE see them as making something like statement number 4. I think this is an appropriate and constructive neutral comment for an organization like the NCSE to make on the matter when it comes up in such contexts as a local school meeting. To be blunt, I think Coyne is flatly wrong. The NCSE is not advocating a particular religious perspective. It is doing what shows up in my #4; and that is not religious advocacy at all. --- One other thing. We are very much indebted to folks like Richard Hoppe and others who are active in the kinds of local events where education, science, religion and politics all meet up. That is not, however, the sum total of "work on the ground", or the only consideration by one should evaluate the public statements of others. If Jerry Coyne (for example) is at a public school meeting on school standards, and addressed the meeting with a rebuttal of religion and a reasoned case for how science and religion are incompatible, and ends up alienating 80% of the audience, that would be bad tactics. I doubt it has ever happened. If Jerry Coyne writes an op-ed article to rebut religion and make a reasoned case for how science and religion are incompatible, that's a legitimate part of a wider public engagement on religion and science more generally. It is no more and no less appropriate than Ken Miller writing an op-ed article to support religion and make a reasoned case for how science and religion are mutually supportive. You have no business judging either of them simply by how well the editorials happen to play if read out at a school meeting! In fact, that is a dreadful way to evaluate the merits of such op-eds.Russell Blackford · 27 April 2009
Wheels, there are powerful arguments that orthodox versions of religion are incompatible with the general picture of the world arising from science, especially but not solely the facts of evolution. If you're asking me to put the arguments here, I'm sorry but other people are doing that already, I've sketched some of it over at my original large blog post, which was one of the (minor compared to others) triggers for all this, I have some related things to say in my own essay in my forthcoming co-edited (with Udo Schuklenk) book, and you can read recent books by Philip Kitcher, Victor Stenger and others. Or else read the essays by Kitcher, Stenger, A.C. Grayling, and others in our book who discuss the relationship between science and religion. I don't think this is the place to have the substantive philosophical argument, but if you're suggesting those arguments don't exist, I'm rather puzzled. Clearly, a lot of us are putting these arguments that there is, at least, a tension between orthodox monotheism and well-established scientific conclusions. Whether it amounts to an "incompatibility" might be a matter of semantics, depending on how you define that word, but, yes, I do think that the total picture makes the orthodox theist position look very implausible - even more implausible than it would look in the absence of the scientific discoveries of the last few centuries. If you want to explore the literature on that, I hope these pointers will help you. Of course, the total literature is vast.
I have never argued that individuals who disagree with me are dishonest, so I don't know why you are raising that. Perhaps some are, but I have no special reason to think so. These are complex issues, and individual people are entitled to disagree without being accused of dishonesty. I also suggest to you that when you offer a caricature of my position and exclaim "That sounds ridiculous to me," I'm not impressed.
If you don't accept the above points, I don't see much point in us continuing to talk, because your starting point is so remote from mine that we have no common ground.
In case you do accept them, I'll go on. There is a live dispute about whether science and some kinds of religion (not just fundamentalist kinds) are in tension with each other, and whether the tension is so difficult to resolve that it can be called an incompatibility. I think one thing about that; Jerry Coyne thinks something similar; so does Richard Dawkins; so does Victor Stenger; and so do many others. Ken Miller thinks something different. So do many others (philosophers, scientists, and theologians).
I'm not asking that the NAS or any other science organisation take a stance favouring my position. I'm merely asking such organisations to be neutral. If you agree with me so far, the only question is whether they have been.
As for that, of course I may be wrong. Like you, I have certain impressions and sometimes find myself just incredulous. But it certainly looks from here as if the bodies we're talking about are going out of their way to convince the public that there is no incompatibility. It may be that if we went through the material in very fine detail we'd discover that there is, on every specific occasion, some cop-out wording: "Many people think this"; "Lots of religious organisations say that"; and so on. But when so much space and weight is given to the views of Miller, Ayala, and so on, can you really claim that there's no concerted attempt to lead the public to think that scientific discoveries of how the world works actually pose no threat to religious belief? Surely that's a deliberate PR decision that these bodies are taking. Matt Nisbet, for example, doesn't seem to be in much doubt about that - it's just that he thinks it's a good thing; it's an exemplary exercise in "framing". I think you'd have to be pretty legalistic to think that no such deliberate PR strategy is reflected in publications from various of these bodies. If you don't see it that way, let's disagree.
All that said, and assuming I'm right so far, there's still an argument that what they are doing is politically expedient, and that political expediency is overwhelmingly important in the American context. I've said numerous times now, here and on my own blog, that I can see the force of that argument. I don't really buy it, but as a non-American I approach the issue with a degree of humility. I don't believe my tone has been aggressive or dogmatic. I've repeatedly expressed recognition of my own fallibility on such a point. If this issue of expediency is what we think the whole debate turns on, let's have an honest debate about the need to tell noble lies (or noble half-truths) to the American public. Taner Edis has put a view something like that (though I don't want to mischaracterise him and you should read his views for yourself) over here: http://secularoutpost.infidels.org/2009/04/endorsing-compatibility-of-science-and.html
Dale Husband · 27 April 2009
Dave Luckett · 27 April 2009
Russ, you're confusing issues. Free speech, including the right to advocate for atheism, is not in question, and never was. You are confusing that issue with another argument entirely: that atheism is not a necessary response to the Theory of Evolution, or to science generally. For if atheism is not a definite, solid, irrefutable implication of the Theory, then insisting on it lays an unnecessary burden on science itself, and as such, impedes it.
I am open to evidence that it is not so, but the evidence would have to be fairly persuasive to overcome the prima facie argument, which runs this:
An overwhelming majority of Americans (the most important funders of science in the world) are religious adherents within an Abrahamic tradition, for whom religious faith is both a personal statement and a cultural condition. If it were the case that this faith were necessarily opposed to the Theory of Evolution, then yes, that faith would be refuted, no matter what the implications of that refutation.
But if such a religious faith is not necessarily incompatible with science - and absent an absolute refutation of that position, that is indeed the case - then there is no harm in saying so, and much harm in refusing to say so. For such a refusal plays into the hands of the creationists, allowing them to peddle the lie that one cannot have a (specifically Christian) religious faith at all and accept evolution.
And this exposes the nub of the argument we're having. Yes, it is possible to take the view that the Theory of Evolution denies or at least argues against an Abrahamic religious belief. No argument from me on that. But you are going further. In effect, you are attempting to argue that this view must be correct. Unless you can clinch that argument - not that it is reasonable to take that view, but that it is proven and agreed, done and dusted, accepted by all who have considered the facts, that atheism is an implication of evolution - then you are increasing the burden on science educators like the NCSE for no good purpose by insisting on that.
I quite take the point that arguments can be made from the Theory of Evolution and from observations on the natural world that there is no God, at least according to the Christian understanding. It seems, as you say, difficult to reconcile the idea of a loving and involved Deity with suffering generally, and nature is full of suffering. But in all fairness, as you well know, these arguments have been around for thousands of years, and so have their counterarguments. By all means rehash them if you will - no doubt there's many a thesis in it yet - but why insist, when it (a) ain't necessarily so and (b) is an impediment to science education to do so?
Mike Elzinga · 27 April 2009
CryingofLot49 · 27 April 2009
Yipes! FL & Kwok bumping pinheads and penises! I'm gettin' outta here, me!
J.J.E. · 27 April 2009
Russell Blackford · 27 April 2009
Dave Luckett · 27 April 2009
Russ, then we are as one. I don't think it's necessary to insist that there is no God, when talking to people about evolution, or about scientific truth generally, and neither do you. Excellent. We are agreed.
So why not say the same thing in a positive, rather than in a double-negative way? Viz instead of saying it's not necessary to be an atheist to accept and support the Theory of Evolution, why not say that one can profess a religious faith and still accept that theory, and all scientific knowledge?
And if one may say that - and I think we agree that one may, however little either of us is personally moved to such a faith - then what is the objection to an organisation such as the NCSE saying it, given that they are concerned to facilitate the widest possible acceptance of the Theory of Evolution and of science generally, and that such a statement is beneficial to that cause?
J.J.E. · 27 April 2009
- Excerpts of Statements by Scientists
Who See No Conflict Between Their Faith and Science
- Science and Religion
- How Do I Read the Bible? Let Me Count the Ways
It takes a pretty big stretch of my credulity to imagine that NCSE is merely pointing out that science and religion can be practiced by the same people. They have clearly come down on the side of "religion is compatible with science", something I think is beyond their purview. It is fine to have that debate, just not by NCSE.Russell Blackford · 27 April 2009
Dave, there's an ambiguity in your wording - and this bedevils the whole debate. Yes, it is psychologically possible for some people to accept some sort of orthodox theism while also accepting the general picture of science. No one has ever denied that.
Francisco Ayala is one such person. But I think Ayala does it by making an obvious philosophical blunder:
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/reviews/2340/darwins-gift-science-and-religion
So, what is psychologically possible for individuals might not be what makes the best logical sense. I agree entirely that it's psychologically possible for some people, but that wasn't what my blog post, which is being objected to in this thread, was all about. Psychologically possible or not, it takes some doing, once you really think about it, and in my view the better argument is that the propositions of orthodox theism and those of well-corroborated science are not objectively compatible. They do not, objectively, sit well together. But again, I'm not asking any science organisation to agree with me on that, just to be neutral about it. That would require, for example, that they not insist (to use that word) on presenting the doctrine of non-overlapping magisteria in a highly-favourable light, almost as if it were uncontroversial.
Look, surely it must be apparent by now that I am not some fanatic who wants to destroy the good work being done by the AAAS, NAS, and NCSE. Nor, I assume, is Jerry, or PZ, or Larry. I'm sure we all understand the political exigencies, despite the tone and substance of the post that started this thread, though we may not all be equally swayed by them.
I can't speak for the others, but I certainly recognise the claims of expediency. Perhaps if I sat down to talk this over with Eugenie Scott, or whomever, over a glass of beer/wine/scotch/whatever is appropriate, I could be brought to see how political expediency necessitates every single word and action that might be worrying me at the moment. But maybe not. And let's not forget that it doesn't have to be all or nothing: either Jerry or someone hijacks the whole PR campaign of all the science organisations so that it all starts to look like RichardDawkins.net; or else nothing whatsoever changes and we are simply told to piss off. That's a false dichotomy.
Isn't it possible that if Jerry, PZ, and Larry were consulted in the depth that people like Ayala seem to be, that it just might lead to some positive changes? Are there no additions, subtractions, or modifications whatsoever that might be made that would make us feel more comfortable, without doing harm to the missions of the science organisations? Isn't it least possible that there are some proposals that might come from Jerry and the others that might actually be helpful? Rather than mocking colleagues and allies like Jerry, PZ, and Larry, why not engage with them constructively, and in a bit of detail, next time the NAS or the AAAS or the NCSE is reviewing its communications strategy? I'm not suggesting that anyone fly me over from Australia, but the other three are on hand in North America; why not talk to them, explaining just why each thing they object to is necessary, but also seeing if any of their concerns can be met or whether any of their own ideas are useful?
Maybe they wouldn't welcome this; I certainly can't speak for them. But where's the harm in asking them? It might even do some good. It would at least clear the air. That would be more useful than creating a post here just to attack the four of us and to brand the other three as "generals" who are out of touch with the "war".
Frank J · 27 April 2009
Another 2c that probably won't make 0.01c of a difference:
There are too many comments on this thread for me to do more than just skim, but since FL has still not answered my questions I'll say something about the questions of NCSE's advocacy that I have seen in my skimming. From my vantage point - and not necessaily anyone else's - NCSE advocates both Miller and Coyne, so that cancels out. However, NCSE has not said word one about my religion. No defense, no refutation, no statement whatever about whether it is compatible with evolution. Thus compared to Miller and Coyne I feel quite cheated. But not nearly enough to even think about canceling my membership - 10 years and counting.
Zmidponk · 27 April 2009
Wesley R. Elsberry · 27 April 2009
J,J.E.,
Thanks for expanding.
I never claimed that anyone was explicitly claiming that science advocacy organizations should shut up about the public policy issue of government funding of research, so please put away the "strawman" thing. That's two swings and misses for you so far.
OK, here's the thing. Russell Blackford is a philosopher. His entire reason for being is to not simply say that things ought to be some way simply because it is his opinion; he provides an argument as to why that should be the case. The argument that Russell provided in the post I linked to, while applied to a specific case, is quite a general one. If the argument does not work well for the other particular cases that it can be applied to, one may well remain unconvinced that Russell has made his case. As you said, the burden is on the person making the argument.
Yeah, I get that Russell's opinion is that science advocacy organizations should shut up already on this particular public policy issue. What I haven't gotten so far is an argument as to why that should be so such that either his argument is itself limited to the particular case (yes, I already know that he has only applied his argument to this case) or is convincing when applied over all the possibly applicable cases (which I am pointing out does not appear to be true). Russell says that science advocacy organizations should not do things "outside their remit". Russell upholds the primacy of argument on issues among the experts on each particular question. Science organizations shouldn't take stances that tread on the toes of experts outside the field of science. Why, though, is that only applicable to this one particular public policy issue? Are we already back to it is just his opinion that it should be so?
Wesley R. Elsberry · 27 April 2009
Zmidponk · 27 April 2009
Wesley R. Elsberry · 27 April 2009
Zmidpond,
I did read the rest of Coyne's essay. Yes, he doesn't like the way that NCSE addresses the issue. Coyne's solution, though, as I just quoted, is not to correct an imbalance in the presentation, but to make no rebuttal at all to issues touching on religion. That includes the issue at hand that RBH points out and that you previously agreed was a good point. Just because Coyne doesn't specifically address it doesn't mean that his desiderata for NCSE to shut up already doesn't also cover that instance. So which is it, that RBH got Coyne's argument completely backward, or that you disagree with Coyne that the antievolutionists should have the field to themselves without science advocacy organizations butting in on this particular claim? If you are going to invoke Coyne's stance as the controlling one here, you have to play it as it lies, and it is based on "shut up already", and not entirely on "be fair and balanced".
Mike · 27 April 2009
Its clear here that there is a highly vocal minority of atheists who don't really care what goes on with public science education so long as they're allowed, without opposition, to misrepresent the scientific community as propaganda in the culture wars. Thank God that there seem to be plenty of atheists who realize that promoting tolerance is the only way we're going to be able to curb the anti-science education campaign.
Robin · 27 April 2009
eric · 27 April 2009
Dave Luckett · 27 April 2009
John Kwok · 27 April 2009
Pierce R. Butler · 27 April 2009
Russell Blackford · 27 April 2009
Dave, I know you're a reasonable person, but the total impression I'm getting here is that a lot of people are just not prepared to accept any criticism of the NCSE, etc., at all. They just want the critics to shut up.
I take it that, if it were you in charge, you'd now be prepared to reword the bit about NOMA. Well that's a start. Is there nothing else that could be better expressed? I'm prepared to contemplate (at least for the sake of argument) that the NCSE needs to have something fluffy and mollifying about religion, but surely the other side of the coin is that even if that's so it should be as neutral as possible. If there's going to be a compromise on wording, as you seem to imply might be possible, I'd rather it were negotiated privately between people with actual power to make changes, but the big question in my mind is whether those people will be prepared to accept any criticisms or make any compromises at all. Let's hope that they view this discussion positively. Zeus knows, the criticism has hardly been destructive or immoderate, despite some of the reactions. We all want these organisations to succeed. We don't think that Eugenie and the rest are bad guys; generally, we're full of praise for them.
I must add that I've always said (very clearly, I thought) that only certain religious positions are plainly contradictory to science. The other positions that I criticise are inconsistent/in conflict/whatever with it in more subtle ways. I said that in my original post that this whole thread is partly about. Nonetheless, nuanced as my position may be, I am entitled to have it, and more importantly people like PZ and Jerry are entitled to have their positions (which may be more or less nuanced than mine, for all I know, though, for example, I don't think any of us totally rules out deism). What's so terrible or dogmatic or unreasonable about the idea that a science organisation to which they belong, or which represents their interests, should be trying to avoid taking stands on whether they're right or wrong on such matters?
John Kwok · 27 April 2009
Pierce -
What exactly is so offensive about Hess's statement:
"In public discussions of evolution and creationism, we are sometimes told that we must choose between belief in creation and acceptance of the theory of evolution, between religion and science. But is this a fair demand? Must I choose only one or the other, or can I both believe in God and accept evolution? Can I both accept what science teaches and engage in religious belief and practice? This is a complex issue, but theologians, clergy, and members of many religious traditions have concluded that the answer is, unequivocally, yes."
His remarks are exactly what I have heard - either in person or from video (or both) - from the likes of Francisco J. Ayala, Francis Collins, Keith Miller, Ken Miller and Mike Rosenzweig.
NCSE does not endorse any particular religious faith (or non-belief, such as agnosticism or atheism) nor should it. But it is important to stress the compatibility between science and religion when creationists have argued for generations that, "belief in evolution EQUALS denial of GOD".
Respectfully yours,
John
John Kwok · 27 April 2009
Wheels · 27 April 2009
Chris Schoen · 27 April 2009
Wesley R. Elsberry · 27 April 2009
Dave Luckett · 27 April 2009
If a philosopher of the standing of Russell Blackford says that the idea of NOMA is a crock, then I'll accept that, even though I don't clearly understand why. I'd be 'way out of my depth, and I know it, arguing such an issue with him.
So, I would accept some change to the NCSE statements on the compatibility between science and religion, to eliminate NOMA. (Not, of course, that anyone's going to ask me, or could care less what I think.)
I still think that it's unreasonable to demand that the NCSE say nothing on the subject whatsoever. The idea that religious faith is incompatible with science (particularly the Theory of Evolution) is itself a serious impediment to the public support of science, as the creationists well know, and try to exploit. It is only reasonable that if it is possible to maintain a religious faith and accept science, that the NCSE should say so briefly but definitely. I don't know if that would be neutral enough, though.
But there is a wording on the point that could reasonably be negotiated by reasonable people, I am sure.
Wesley R. Elsberry · 27 April 2009
I seem to have missed something, like where exactly any of the science advocacy organizations have endorsed Gould's NOMA concept. I looked over the NCSE website, and didn't find any such thing. Given that I was chided upthread for daring to evaluate an argument against other cases that it might apply to other than the one it was applied to, I think consistency demands that the premise that NOMA is endorsed be documented as a true basic statement before we go further.
Pierce R. Butler · 27 April 2009
Wesley R. Elsberry · 27 April 2009
Wheels · 27 April 2009
Mike · 27 April 2009
eric · 27 April 2009
John Kwok · 27 April 2009
Pierce R. Butler · 27 April 2009
Pierce R. Butler · 27 April 2009
jlue · 27 April 2009
Mike Elzinga · 27 April 2009
Wesley R. Elsberry · 27 April 2009
Pierce,
I think that you are a bit too emotionally involved in this argument. I don't see any other explanation for the dodging that you engaged in in your response to me. I would be saddened to think that you hold me in such low regard as to believe that I would get confused by that. You didn't keep track of all the references and sources, made an unsupportable charge against a correspondent, got called on it, and are now trying to brazen it out as if there was no error on your part. That dog won't hunt.
jlue · 27 April 2009
Mike Elzinga · 27 April 2009
Pierce R. Butler · 27 April 2009
Wesley -
Did I not "concede that the cherrypicking here is primarily by Hess"?
Did you address any of my other points? Will you?
Wheels · 27 April 2009
Pierce R. Butler · 27 April 2009
Wheels · 27 April 2009
Flint · 27 April 2009
Pierce R. Butler · 27 April 2009
Wheels -
I'm too tired at the moment to look up the NAS & AAAS equivocations, so will answer only as regards NCSE.
If NCSE's promotion of Hess, Borgeson, et al, isn't an attempt at compromise, and if it isn't literalists whom they're trying to win over, then what is going on here?
Attempts to reconcile scientific findings with one tradition's Divine Scriptures don't seem like they have any place in either of the NCSE's two domains of greatest expertise, the classroom or the courtroom. Their (sfaik) most successful public outreach is ExpelledExposed.com, which would have failed miserably had it attempted the Kumbaya strategy at issue here.
So, if you'll permit the qualifications just given, I suppose the answer to your question is, "Yes."
Mark Farmer · 27 April 2009
Thank you.
As a self-described "scientist of faith" whose pubications have appeared in both Nature and Evolution I COMPLETELY
jlue · 27 April 2009
Mark Farmer · 27 April 2009
Thank you.
As a self-described “scientist of faith” whose pubications have appeared in both Nature and Evolution I COMPLETELY agree that one can practice credible science and at the same time keep one's own personal beliefs about mankinds relationship with God out of the equation.
I am sorry for the rest of you who have a hard time getting your heads around this, but that is your problem. Not ours.
When I start to invoke Angels and Demons as explanatory possibilities then I fully expect you to reject my papers. But until then the simple fact that you can not comprehend how someone can be both an evolutionist and a person of faith, is of no consequence to me. And my personal beliefs should be of no consequence to you.
I am not trying to meet anyone "halfway" I believe in the unconditional love of my family. I believe in the power of good. I also believe in God. But I do not "believe" in evolution, for the simple reason that is not a belief system. To quote SJG they are non-overlapping magisteria.
Wheels · 27 April 2009
Mike Elzinga · 28 April 2009
Mike Elzinga · 28 April 2009
jlue · 28 April 2009
Wesley R. Elsberry · 28 April 2009
eric · 28 April 2009
The Curmudgeon · 28 April 2009
John Kwok · 28 April 2009
I sent this to Jerry Coyne a short time ago:
Jerry,
If I didn’t have ample respect for your demonstrated excellence as an evolutionary biologist and as a brilliant critic of creationism, especially Intelligent Design creationism, I would have never written this as the opening paragraphs of my Amazon.com review of “Why Evolution Is True”:
“’Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution’. That classic quote from the great Russian-American evolutionary geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky is replete with far more truth now than when he uttered it in 1973. Thousands of scientists around the globe are using the principles of evolution towards understanding phenomena as simple as bacterial population growth to those as complex as the origin and spread of such virulent diseases as malaria and HIV/AIDS, and the conservation of many endangered plant and animal species. There is no other scientific theory I know of that has withstood such rigorous, and repeated, testing as the modern synthetic theory of evolution. The overwhelming proof of biological evolution is so robust, that entire books have been written describing pertinent evidence from sciences that, at first glance, seem as dissimilar from each other as paleobiology, molecular biology and ecology. But alas this hasn’t convinced many in the court of public opinion, especially here, in the United States, who remain skeptical of evolution as both a scientific fact and a scientific theory, and who are too often persuaded by those who insist that there are such compelling ‘weaknesses’ in evolution, that instead of it, better, still ‘scientific’, alternatives exist, most notably, Intelligent Design creationism. Distinguished evolutionary geneticist Jerry Coyne’s “Why Evolution Is True” is not just a timely book, but it is quite simply, the best, most succinct, summation I can think of on behalf of evolution’s scientific validity.”
“No other modern evolutionary biologist has attempted to convey, with such excitement, and enthusiasm, a comprehensive, quite compelling, proof of biological evolution, unless you consider the notable literary careers of Coyne’s graduate school mentors; Ernst Mayr and Stephen Jay Gould. Coyne’s achievement is especially noteworthy for covering virtually every major evolutionary aspect of biology in a treatment that barely exceeds two hundred and thirty pages. In essence, ‘Why Evolution is True’ can be viewed as an updated, modern rendition of Darwin’s ‘On the Origin of Species’, but encompassing those biological sciences, such as population genetics, molecular systematics, evolutionary developmental biology – better known as ‘evo – devo’ – and, indeed, even paleobiology, which were unknown to Darwin; to put it bluntly, this is ‘one long argument’ on behalf of evolutionary biology, told via Coyne’s respectable, occasionally lyrical, prose and compelling logic.”
However, I am greatly perplexed, and distressed, by your recent criticism of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). I feel this way especially since you yourself have noted NCSE’s key role in “manning the barricades” against irrational foes like the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis. So since you do recognize this, then how can you reconcile your support for NCSE’s sterling work on behalf of both the scientific community and scientifically literate public with your assertion that NCSE should refrain from seeking some kind of compatibility with religion? When there are many mainstream religious organizations, and others, such as the Templeton Foundation, which not only seek such compatibility, but, more importantly, recognize that evolution is valid science. When these very organizations recognize that it is quite risible to claim that “belief in evolution EQUALS denial of GOD”. What you are advocating is not merely bad philosophy, but also one that merely confirms all the worst instincts of Evolution Denialists. To put it most succinctly, you are merely allowing yourself to fall into the philosophical trap that creationists have set for scientists and others who accept valid mainstream science like evolutionary biology, by giving them yet another example that only those who reject religion can accept evolution.
Neither the NCSE nor other major scientific organizations like the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) are overreaching by insisting that there can be some kind of compatibility between science and religion. This is an opinion recognized by major religious leaders like Buddhism’s Dalai Lama, and by organizations that promote this compatibility, such as, for example, the Templeton Foundation. It is a view that is reflected in academia through institutes like Columbia University’s Center for the Study of Science and Religion. For these very reasons, it is quite reasonable for NCSE and NAS to issue statements supporting compatibility between science and religion.
Neither you nor PZ Myers, or any of your fellow militant atheists, have had the decades-long experience that Eugenie Scott and her NCSE colleagues have had in countless successful efforts at science advocacy both within the courts and legislatures of the United States. One of the reasons why NCSE has succeeded is by adopting the very philosophy which is the unofficial “official” policy of the American Museum of Natural History; by reminding its visitors that it is not in the business of changing their religious views, but instead, it is interested only in teaching them the principles and facts of valid mainstream science like evolutionary biology. One of the reasons why NCSE may be succeeding is by refusing to attack religious faith, and by seeking instead, some kind of accommodation with those religious faiths that recognize evolutionary biology as sound mainstream science.
I agree with you and Myers that it is a worthwhile goal to have a society in which rational beliefs have a preeminent role in forming public opinion. However, it is a goal that will remain elusive as long as militant atheists like PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins insist on mocking and humiliating those who are religiously devout. Instead of offering persuasive evidence on behalf of atheism and evolutionary biology, Richard Dawkins’s writings, lectures and television appearances, may have contributed substantially to strong negative opinion in Great Britain towards Darwin’s life and work and the acceptance of evolutionary biology as sound mainstream science. Depending upon which poll you believe, nearly forty percent of Dawkins’s fellow Britons now reject evolution as valid science. Are you certain that you wish to continue writing criticism that may prove to be as counterproductive as Dawkins’s writings and Myers’s outrageous acts – like the infamous “cracker incident” - have been?
Sincerely yours,
John Kwok
Pierce R. Butler · 28 April 2009
Notagod · 28 April 2009
J.J.E. · 28 April 2009
Mike Elzinga · 28 April 2009
Pierce R. Butler · 28 April 2009
Wheels · 28 April 2009
What they are doing, as I see it, is simply explaining that the lie peddled by anti-evolutionists, "you can't be a Darwinist and a Christian," is false. They point out that many evolutionary scientists are fervent Christians, and that many branches of Christendom have no beef with evolution. And they are not just targeting the "literalists," because the anti-evolutionists are not targeting the "literalists," whom they already have: the anti-evolutionists are attempting to persuade fence-sitters, and the NCSE is countering their claims to the same audience (or to others who want to do that, by arming them with ready-made rebuttals to Creationist distortions).
That doesn't constitute an attempt at compromise on the part of the NCSE. See what I mean? I really don't see how that's of immediate rather than abstract relevance to the NCSE's tactics, except insomuch as certain polemical parties involved seem to have decided that the issue is the incapability of accepting science while being religious. I think this deserves a bit of an expanded explanation, but what I was trying to do earlier was have Blackford explain his puzzling, apparently useless, terminology before getting into that. Demur how? By not letting anti-evolutionists dishonestly frame the nature of the debate in pretending that you cannot accept evolution and be a Christian (or a Muslim)? An adequate rebuttal is given by pointing out the vast number of people who do both, including those working in the field of science, as well as the official positions of sects which allows for (even foster) such acceptance. I want to make it clear that the NCSE's actions are addressing a specific claim made by several anti-evolutionists, like Morris and Johnson. They don't say "you cannot be a Christian while accepting philosophical naturalism," they don't say "you can belong to some other theistic religion that accepts evolution," they make it very clear that to accept evolution is to reject God and become an atheist. This kind of assertion is just patently incorrect, and the NCSE wants to make sure people know it when they encounter an anti-evolutionist who tries to convince them of it. Now, about the "orthodox monotheism" bit: Which is why this sort of label doesn't make sense when applied to a broad theological category such as "monotheism" rather than specific religions or sects within that category, as Blackford used the term "orthodox monotheism" in claiming a conflict between that and "certain scientific conclusions." As I pointed out when questioning his use of the term, the only way to violate the orthodoxy of monotheism is to posit a number of deities that's not equal to 1. Otherwise, if he simply means "the bulk of mainstream monotheistic religions," it does not apply to the debate, because (as I pointed out), most mainstream Christian sects have already decided that evolution doesn't conflict with their faith. I could do the same for modern Judaism, while Islam seemingly lacks orthodoxy as it exists in the Christian world. It's because they've decided that their interpretation of Scripture doesn't put them at odds with the conclusion that life on Earth (including humankind) evolved, as I've pointed out. Which I've also addressed. So what I'm getting at is that Blackford's assertion that "orthodox monotheism" being incompatible with "certain scientific conclusions" makes no good sense and is, in fact, wrong.
John Kwok · 28 April 2009
John Kwok · 28 April 2009
Joao · 28 April 2009
In my view, you are seriously misinterpreting Coyne's arguments. Nothing makes me believe that Coyne is blind to the evidence that accommodation of religious views and the scientific pursuit does exist - and even successfully so - both in academia and the clergy.
His point, and I fully agree with him, is that these views are intrinsically contradictory. True belief in religious dogma is simply incompatible with the pursuit of answers through the scientific method. I will always defend an individual's right to add contradiction to their own lives, but I would never defend the right of associations representing the scientific trade to advocate that the quest for verifiable answers is limited by what one feels comfortable with.
If we consider the practicability of accommodating both views, you may very well be right. The scientific trade may have more to gain by attempting to be conciliatory. The data is on your side, scientists are outnumbered and have less political strength. Advocating a direct contraposition of ideas is clearly a result of "not knowing the nature of war". But that's simply not science, that's curve fitting.
John Kwok · 28 April 2009
Marion Delgado · 28 April 2009
Normally, I am firmly in the camp of Richard Hoppe and Chris Mooney. (When MY ox is being gored, I am a little less frame-oriented and PR-oriented, admittedly - climate science denialism vs. evolution denialism).
That being said, can we all agree as an example that Nisbet's attacks on PZ are wretched, stupid, and discrediting for the overall position he's allegedly representing? If people like PZ (who doesn't set my teeth on edge the way people like Dennett do, let alone actual scientific ignoramuses posing as savants like Penn Jillette) are said to be discrediting their desired position, how much more so the people who are claiming expertise? PZ is way better at cephalopods and evo-devo than Nisbet, e.g., is at framing.
Pierce R. Butler · 28 April 2009
John Kwok · 28 April 2009
Pierce R. Butler · 28 April 2009
J.J.E. · 28 April 2009
FL · 28 April 2009
Wesley R. Elsberry · 29 April 2009
Wesley R. Elsberry · 29 April 2009
Dale Husband · 29 April 2009
Popper's Ghost · 29 April 2009
You were doing fine until all the ad hominems about foot soldiers and generals.
Popper's Ghost · 29 April 2009
Dave Luckett · 29 April 2009
Or it means that "image" may be understood to mean something other than "physical similarity". An image may be simply a reflection. The words might be understood to mean that Man reflects the nature or reality of God.
It really would get contorted if we had to posit that God has a set physical appearance. Long white beard, maybe?
Stanton · 29 April 2009
Pierce R. Butler · 29 April 2009
Dave Lovell · 29 April 2009
Mike Elzinga · 29 April 2009
John Kwok · 29 April 2009
John Kwok · 29 April 2009
Dale Husband · 29 April 2009
John Kwok · 29 April 2009
J. J. E. -
You can find out more about Columbia University's Center for the study of Science and Religion (CSSR) here:
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cssr/
One of its board of directors is Columbia University religious studies professor - and devout Buddhist - Robert Thurman (And yes, for those who are in the know, he is actress Uma Thurman's father.). On its advisory board are faculty from Columbia's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University Medical Center, and Columbia's main campus in Morningside Heights. These include physicist Brian Greene and philosopher Philip Kitcher.
Again CSSR is not set up as a science advocacy group, but instead one which does research and sponsors interdisciplinary conferences and lectures.
Respectfully yours,
John
J.J.E. · 29 April 2009
FL · 29 April 2009
James F · 29 April 2009
John Kwok · 30 April 2009