NOMA in Ohio, Redux

Under those circumstances, examples like Collins, a scientist, evangelical Christian and theistic evolutionist, are very valuable. They can potentially help reassure all but the most fundamentalist parents that learning about evolution does not necessarily set their children on the path to atheism and hence to Hell. Ken Miller’s Finding Darwin’s God was very useful in the skirmish in the local district four years ago, particularly with school board members, and I anticipate that Collins’ The Language of God will be even more useful should another such skirmish arise. RBH

I rather suspect that NOMA, as a point of view, is more useful as a means of declaring that science is not hostile to religion than the other way around. Science is, by definition, concerned only with the objective or, in the words of Philip K. Dick, that which continues to exist when you stop believing in it. Religion, on the other hand, has a different definition of the word "exists," which leads to the conflict.

Of course, NOMA would go out the window if there actually WAS any kind of scientific evidence supporting any religious claim. If for example that study the Templeton foundation did into the efficacy of prayer demonstrated a measurable positive result, do you think the theists would be talking about NOMA then? Hell no, they'd be spamming every online forum they could find with the results. Personally I find the entire NOMA concept to be ridiculous. It's just a way to excuse belief in something without any rational reason too. If someone believes there are fairies in there garden I'm free to call them nuts, but if someone says they believe in angels I'm supposed to "respect" that belief because of NOMA? I think not.

you won’t find your savior in Collins.

He provides an existence proof for the proposition that there are evangelical Christians who accept evolution. And that’s it.

except that's NOT it, since he has explicitly pointed out in the very book you cite that he supports special creation in the case of "moral law".

read the relevant sections of that book again, or else read the review i linked to, and scroll down to the section reviewing Collins' "Moral Law".

how can you say that religion hasn't affected him when he writes off entire fields of endeavor like animal behavior?

Moreover, he writes as if no research on the foundations of human behavior in the brain have ever been done.

so does Collins "accept" evolution? only up to a certain point, whereupon he then asserts that humans are exceptions.

sorry, but like I said, Collins is NOT a good example to use to further the cause you seek.

Miller?

much better, if not perfect.

... Wes is perhaps an even better example, if not quite as well known as Miller.

how can you say that religion hasn’t affected him when he writes off entire fields of endeavor like animal behavior?

RBH having been raised in a nice conservative environment I generally agree with your take on fear being a huge motivator. More importantly given the philosophical assumptions (even if they are largely unconscious assumptions) of many evangelicals their fear is a rationale extension of those assumptions. That seems to be an under appreciated point by many who haven't spent a lot of time in Red areas of the country.

And where did I say that?

when you said this:

Tactically, Collins serves just one useful function: He provides an existence proof for the proposition that there are evangelical Christians who accept evolution. And that’s it.

he doesn't accept evolution as an explanation for a large part of human behavior. it's like saying one accepts atomic theory, up until the point where we start talking about electrons.

Nevertheless, the fact of his existence is very useful in local school curriculum battles in communities like mine.

yes, I understand tactics vs. long term strategy, and i understand that Collins might be useful in certain circumstances.

maybe I'm making an argument that is best suited for another time and place, but I worry that anybody who brings up Collins as a supporter of the ToE needs to be aware of the other face he doesn't even hide all that well.

as it sounds like you are indeed aware of it, I suppose there is little point in dragging the issue out further.

big tents, any port in a storm, and all.

he doesn’t accept evolution as an explanation for a large part of human behavior. it’s like saying one accepts atomic theory, up until the point where we start talking about electrons.

except that’s NOT it, since he has explicitly pointed out in the very book you cite that he supports special creation in the case of “moral law”.

— Ichthyic

RBH:

Speaking of fear, even if one can’t eliminate their fear of evolution, it might be possible to get some of them (they can’t all be 100% illogical) to realize that they have at least as much to fear about creationism. Just to start with, YEC and OEC (which has its own mutually contradictory subsets) can’t both be right. At least one must be bearing false witness. If anything, ID, with its “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy should be their biggest fear. These people need to hear that Dembski said that ID can accommodate all the results of “Darwinism.” And that Michael Behe admitted under oath that the designer they all desperately want to be God could even be deceased. Multiple designers, anyone? Is that the alternative to evolution that they want? And what about those people like Schwabe, Senapathy and Goldschmidt, whose alternatives to evolution are just as “Godless”? Where do they fit in their little fundamentalist fantasy?

Yes, I know that most of those fearful people will just “Morton’s Demon” it all away, including any reassuring words of TEs, but a few might take notice, and put some well-needed strain on the big tent.

So what I'm reading here is:

1) It's possible to understand and accept evolution and be an evangelical Christian at the same time.

2) Unfortunately, to do this, one must necessarily distort parts of evolution, of Christianity, or both.

3) Collins and the Millers are tactically effective if we emphasize 1) and carefully fail to mention 2).

OK, I get it. RBH is engaged in spin, intended to counter creationist spin. In a scientific forum, spin is a no-no, and we should weed it out. In a political forum, spin is the environment, both unavoidable and necessary. Context matters.

Flint, the Panda's Thumb is a political forum, concerned with the politics of creationist efforts to inject pseudoscience into public school science classrooms. At the high school level, our side is just fighting for the right to teach the basics of evolutionary theory to science students without having to teach them a pack of lies to mollify fundamentalists. At that basic level, Collins, to my knowledge, has no problem with standard evolutionary theory, and to the extent that he can reassure fundamentalists that a high school science textbook with accurate high school level information on evolutionary theory isn't going to turn their child into an atheist, he aids our cause.

Flint,

In fact, Collins said in response to a question about the apparent God of the gaps character of his argument (a kind of argument he specifically rejected in the book), that were what he calls "Moral Law" to be someday explained by sociobiology and/or evolutionary psychology, he would accept that and it would not affect his evangelical faith. He's not a Behe.

And, my children, in the very first essay I published on the evolution/creationism question more than 20 years ago, I made the argument that it is a political issue, not a scientific issue. And so it still is.

RBH

Sounds now like Collins agrees to go wherever he accepts that the evidence leads (though what he'll accept remains to be seen). Meanwhile, he's trapped within the theological requirement that his god DO something. What good is a god who can't alter reality in any way? What good is a science that permits reality to be diddled arbitrarily? What's the difference between an atheist and a follower of the Church of God The Nonexistent?

I have a hard time getting past the idea that a science-compatible god is far too ethereal and less personal than most Faithful parents are comfortable with. Collins may say he's comfortable with (and faithful to) a god who is ultimately indistinguishable in any way from being imaginary, but I wonder if this is too much for our political opponents to swallow. They want their god to create something, not just kinda hang out there somewhere non-interfering with natural processes.

The idea that religious scientists prove that religion and science are compatible is ridiculous, and I'm embarrassed that I ever believed it. Having believed for so long, however, I understand its attraction, and its fatal weaknesses. ... One of the key battles is to insist on the incompatibility of beliefs based on evidence and beliefs that ignore evidence. Saying that the mental lives of a Francis Collins or a Freeman Dyson prove that religion and science are compatible is like saying that the sex lives of Bill Clinton or Ted Haggard prove that marriage and adultery are compatible. The people we need to watch out for in this part of the debate aren't the fundamentalists, they're the moderates, the ones who think that if religious belief is made metaphorical enough, incompatibility with science can be waved away. It can't be, and we need to say so, especially to the people like me, before I changed my mind.

RBH,

It appears that Clay Shirkey's cause is to promote atheism, which is a distinctly different cause than providing public school students a good science education. Obviously Collins' and Myers' positions don't aid in the promotion of atheism, but Shirkey's position that science is incompatible with religious belief doesn't help the cause of protecting high school science education.

OK, I get it. RBH is engaged in spin,

now, now, I believe the current PC term is "framing".

:p

More importantly, Behe has spent years misrepresenting evolution, and to my knowledge, Collins has not.

then read his book and decide for yourself, eh?

that were what he calls “Moral Law” to be someday explained by sociobiology and/or evolutionary psychology, he would accept that and it would not affect his evangelical faith.

bah, that does not resemble the argument he made in his book AT ALL.

if you really want to bring this up here, we can really flesh it out.

I don't think that would be a good "tactical" move on your part, though.

I was happy to drop it in favor of letting Collins be used in the fashion that appears to have been pragmatic for you, but don't let your pragmatism blind you to the horrid logic Collins uses in that book, or the gross ignorance he appears to have of the field of behavioral ecology itself.

seriously, are you suggesting you wish to flesh this issue out in THIS thread?

...just to add, I realize the pragmatism that Collins has had for you in your specific battles. If you wish, I have no problems taking this discussion to another forum so you don't water down his value to you publicly.

if so, feel free just to remove all of my comments to somewhere you think more appropriate; i have no objections.

Now, contra my claim of the political utility of Collins’ (and both Millers’) position

no, you were right to claim expediency for the audience that was the target of your usage of Collins.

they are indeed unlikely (for the most part) to plumb the depths of the logical problems Collins' arguments of "Moral Law" present.

I can appreciate that; just as you appreciate that a different audience is unlikely to be convinced at ALL of the value of Collins' arguments.

Frankly, I liked what that McKee guy had to say, in the linked on-line video. I guess I have a bias that way.

But I don't think that the the focus should be on NOMA. It should be on objective science as being a goal that is not, in the words of ID supporters, materialistic, but my preferred wording, realistic.

I'll stick strongly by my point that if it were not for the perceived implications of HUMAN evolution, then there would be no problem with evolutionary theory in the science classroom or in the general public's understanding of basic biology. Therein lies the problem ... it involves US!

And, as I pointed out, the fossil record leading to US (humans) is remarkably convincing.

This has little to do with NOMA. It has to do with solid science first. And that is what should be in our classrooms, rather than the personal beliefs of Francis Collins or myself.

That we made such views accessible was one point of the project. That evolution was portrayed as an objective reality of the natural world, that was my goal.

Best,
Jeff

…just to add, I realize the pragmatism that Collins has had for you in your specific battles. If you wish, I have no problems taking this discussion to another forum so you don’t water down his value to you publicly. if so, feel free just to remove all of my comments to somewhere you think more appropriate; i have no objections.

Frankly, I liked what that McKee guy had to say, in the linked on-line video. I guess I have a bias that way.

I’m quite clear about my own inability to understand how the theistic evolutionists reconcile the two positions, but again, that’s not my problem and I can say that quite cheerfully.

I don’t quite understand how they accomplish the reconciliation

the point is, when pushed to elucidate, it becomes quite clear that they actually have not accomplished such a reconciliation as they claim. Collins does an excellent job in the first half of his book showing how all the evidence he personally has observed indeed supports modern evolutionary theory. Then, in the second half, he shows how his religion prevents him from seeing how that same theory applies to basic behavior.

Miller does the same thing, but his arguments are at least better reasoned, if still incorrect.

So I don’t have to “spin” or “frame” or misrepresent or slip and slide around the issue.

you just have the luxury of being able to ignore the problems, as, like i said, your target audience doesn't care.

yes, it does border on dishonesty at some level, but I can't argue with results.

Where is the dishonesty?

Where is the dishonesty?

in representing these people who have "reconciled" science with their personal religion in a rational manner.

they have not, actually done so.

that you have the luxury of ignoring that in favor of highlighting their better arguments doesn't mean that those of us who actually teach evolutionary biology at the University level can, or should.

seriously, you don't see how misrepresentation is at least dishonest at some level?

really?

My $.02: I must agree with RBH here. The fact that Collins and the Millers have arrived at a way of accommodating science within their religious perspectives does not require them to accommodate their religion within a scientific perspective, which is what (it appears to me that) Ichthyic is asking for. Since a religious perspective is inherently subjective, there is no need for all contradictions to be resolved, as there is within an objective scientific perspective.

The fact that Collins and the Millers have arrived at a way of accommodating science within their religious perspectives does not require them to accommodate their religion within a scientific perspective

NO.

what I am saying is that they have attempted to accommodate science to fit their religious preconceptions, and in Collins case, have made some horrible arguments in order to attempt such.

sweet jebus, people, read his damn book, or at least read the review of the relevant material that Gert offered on Talk Reason.

there was a reason I included that link, you know.

Since a religious perspective is inherently subjective, there is no need for all contradictions to be resolved, as there is within an objective scientific perspective.

BS.

surely you can readily poke holes in such a simplistic relativist argument yourself.

Would someone who thinks Collins approach is laudatory please tell me how you will respond to a university student in your evolutionary bio class who, because apparently "respected scientists and educators" support Collins' book, concludes that sociobiology, behavioral ecology, or even physiology of brain function in humans have never contributed to our understanding of basic elements of behavior?

surely Collins' gross ignorance of the roles these fields have played in understanding behavior won't trouble you in your explanation to said student, right?

so, will you really say there is a SCIENTIFIC controversy that exists within the field of behavior that is better explained by Collins' "Moral Law" approach?

my god, if so, I think I really DID have serious need to bang this particular drum.

when considering source materials to educate students on evolution and behavior, will you refer them to Collins' Moral Law argument, or will you refer them here:

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/toc/jeb/19/5?cookieSet=1

instead?

Am I at least beginning to make myself clear?

Ichthyic: Would someone who thinks Collins approach is laudatory please tell me how you will respond to a university student in your evolutionary bio class who, because apparently "respected scientists and educators" support Collins' book, concludes that sociobiology, behavioral ecology, or even physiology of brain function in humans have never contributed to our understanding of basic elements of behavior?

The purpose of Collins’ book is to speak to people who seek reconciliation from a religious perspective, not a scientific perspective.

then that's not reconciliation, is it. creationism is a reconciliation from a religious perspective, too.

End of $.02.

probably good.

Where is the dishonesty? in representing these people who have “reconciled” science with their personal religion in a rational manner. they have not, actually done so. that you have the luxury of ignoring that in favor of highlighting their better arguments doesn’t mean that those of us who actually teach evolutionary biology at the University level can, or should. seriously, you don’t see how misrepresentation is at least dishonest at some level? really?

nevertheless Collins ignores what we do know about the evolution of mutuality, altruism, and cooperation. He ignores things like the fact that variation is important in evolution and that distributions have tails. His examples come from the extreme tails of distributions – Mother Teresa, for example. (One might note that Mother Teresa was singularly unsuccessful in reproductive terms – stabilizing selection in action? :))

then I'm even MORE unclear.

since you appear to understand his arguments are poor and based mostly on apparent ignorance, how can you hold him up as a shining example of someone who:

...provides an existence proof for the proposition that there are evangelical Christians who accept evolution. And that’s it.

again, acceptance dependent on what, exactly? ignoring large chunks of entire fields of scientific endeavor?

how, in the end, does that make him logically any better than Behe, as PG rightly points out? because he accepts some evidence (genetic) and rejects others (behavior/physiology)?

since you HAVE, like myself, taught evolutionary biology at the university level, how would YOU address your support for Collins in your own classroom?

by saying students can simply ignore him when he goes off the deep end, but pay close attention when he speaks of genetics?

how does that make him an example of "reconciliation"?

you're playing word games that avoid the real issue here, and it's getting tiresome, frankly.

btw, THIS:

I anticipate that Collins’ The Language of God will be even more useful should another such skirmish arise.

sure as fuck seems like a "claim" to me.

How he does it inside his own head I don’t know, and since I left cognitive psychology 18 years ago I no longer have to take a professional interest in it.

what you know or don't know about what's going on in his head is entirely irrelevant to the arguments he actually presents in the damn book.

you recognize the problem, clearly, but apparently refuse to admit its significance.

as i said, i understand tactics, but you appear to be confusing tactics with reality.

try going back and answering the question i posed as to what you would actually TELL your students about Collins' arguments.

The statewide newspaper has an editorial today by one of its senior editors which is an example of why science education is in trouble in SC, among other places:

http://blogs.thestate.com/bradwarthensblog/2008/01/must-we-fight-a.html

Seems to be a semantic disagreement here, as to what the difference might be between "reconciling" incompatible views, and "compartmentalizing" them. I've read some of the Collins and Miller material, and I see clear compartmentalizing - they're fine until their faith intrudes, and they undergo a phase transition. It's almost surreal, watching them cross the line where on one side facts lead to conclusions, and on the other side conclusions dictate the facts.

I liked Shirkey's argument that religion is a subset of wrong (that is, something can be wrong without being religion, but it can't be religion without being wrong). But I'm not totally comfortable with saying "Here, these folks successfully compartmentalize (a form of insanity!), so you can too!" The tactical goal here, as far as I can tell, is to reduce resistence to good education by getting troublesome irrational people to be just as irrational in a less obstructive way. "It's OK if you do that nasty thing, so long as you do it over there where I can't see you."

Flint: The tactical goal here, as far as I can tell, is to reduce resistence to good education by getting troublesome irrational people to be just as irrational in a less obstructive way. "It's OK if you do that nasty thing, so long as you do it over there where I can't see you."

So, what's the message Joe Average should be getting then? Should he think that there is no way to reconcile faith with science? And if so, why shouldn't he tell science to screw off then, and vote for whatever Creationists he pleases for school board or President?

If continued research into “sociobiology, behavioral ecology, or even physiology of brain function in humans” leads to the conclusion that this irrationality is part and parcel of human nature, will we continue to try to “cure” it, or just learn to live with it?

"Give me the children until they are seven, and anyone may have them afterwards."

Saint Francis Xavier

Would that we could teach them rationality by seven, but I fear it will take more luck, diligence, and generations than I see available.

I’ve read some of the Collins and Miller material, and I see clear compartmentalizing - they’re fine until their faith intrudes,

actually, Flint, that indicates a failure to compartmentalize.

I think perhaps what you meant to say is that they are able to compartmentalize, up to a point, and that point appears to be at a place farther along the dichotomy than a typical creationist.

It's still a failure, and it's still inevitable IMO.

here, bill:

If continued research into “sociobiology, behavioral ecology, or even physiology of brain function in humans” leads to the conclusion that this irrationality schizophrenia is part and parcel of human nature, will we continue to try to “cure” it, or just learn to live with it?

If continued research into “sociobiology, behavioral ecology, or even physiology of brain function in humans” leads to the conclusion that this irrationality schizophrenia is part and parcel of human nature, will we continue to try to “cure” it, or just learn to live with it?

Dave S.: So, what's the message Joe Average should be getting then? Should he think that there is no way to reconcile faith with science? And if so, why shouldn't he tell science to screw off then, and vote for whatever Creationists he pleases for school board or President?

So, what’s the message Joe Average should be getting then?

that depends on whether your intentions are pragmatic, or logical, in intent.

obviously, Richard has had considerable success in using Collins, Miller, et. al. in order to placate those who really somehow think that their kids will go to hell if they study evolutionary biology.

the matter that concerns me is what happens to those kids when we get them to the University level, not what happens to their parents.

Ichthyic: here, bill:

If continued research into “sociobiology, behavioral ecology, or even physiology of brain function in humans” leads to the conclusion that this irrationality schizophrenia is part and parcel of human nature, will we continue to try to “cure” it, or just learn to live with it?

that depends on whether your intentions are pragmatic, or logical, in intent.

actually, Flint, that indicates a failure to compartmentalize.

the matter that concerns me is what happens to those kids when we get them to the University level, not what happens to their parents.

any subterfuge that works is fair game.

so, we are convinced that utilizing Collins in the fashion described by Richard is indeed, just a subterfuge?

by defining the characteristic as a recognized malady, you’re stacking the deck

intentionally so, and with reason. Look at the history of researching and diagnosing schizophrenia, and I think you will see why I used it. Started off as "devil inspired evilness" and gradually became a well known, readily diagnosable, and treatable malady.

perhaps a subject to consider in depth on some other thread, some other time, but I will say that I recall a couple of years back, right here on PT, papers looking at the heritability of traits associated with "extreme religious behavior".

not suggesting this is our immediate future, likewise not suggesting there is no pragmatic use for Collins in the Culture Wars. Again, as I said earlier, I do realize the value of tactics. my point is, and always has been, that in using such tactics, I'm a little worried as to what the consequences might be - not from the fundies' perspective, but from those who actually do and teach science.

I’m fully aware that Collins’ arguments are specious, at least from my atheist and scientific perspective, and in a teaching context where that issue is germane I’d have no hesitation in gutting them with a dull table knife. He uses an old fashioned God of the gaps argument with a side dish of a sort of ontological argument for the existence of God, as Patricia pointed out in the panel discussion. While we do not have a complete account of the evolution of morality, nevertheless Collins ignores what we do know about the evolution of mutuality, altruism, and cooperation. He ignores things like the fact that variation is important in evolution and that distributions have tails. His examples come from the extreme tails of distributions – Mother Teresa, for example. (One might note that Mother Teresa was singularly unsuccessful in reproductive terms – stabilizing selection in action? :))

Stick with Ken Miller as your example. Drop Collins and anyone else who allows their religion to trump science.

So he does bad science and rejects good science

just to be fair, he was in charge of some pretty good science (I don't fault the Human Genome Project, for the vast majority of the work it was responsible for), it's just Collins' arguments wrt the evolution of behavior that fall entirely flat, and at least to me are entirely indicative of how compartmentalization fails.

To compare, John Davison also did some good science, once upon a time, and I hardly think Collins has gotten to that point yet.

Michael Egnor might be another case on point.

Miller's arguments are far more subtle and removed for the most part, but rely, in the end, on some failed bits of compartmentalization as well, so "tactically" I prefer them, but ideologically i still treat them like the plague.

I also would like to revise something I said earlier.

In thinking more about it, I find that I can put myself into the position of having the luxury to think of Collins' arguments from a purely scientific standpoint ( I don't have to spend much time trying to convince parents their kids aren't going to hell), while accusing Richard of having the luxury to ignore it in his particular battles.

I guess I'm thinking that neither of us really has the luxury to ignore the other side of this particular coin.

I would answer that Collins’ book is irrelevant to those topics.

The purpose of Collins’ book is to speak to people who seek reconciliation from a religious perspective, not a scientific perspective. Collins is not speaking to university students in an evolutionary bio class, he is speaking from a personal (religious) perspective to people who share that perspective.

The (presumably scientific) “understanding of basic elements of behavior” you speak of has nothing to do with a religious perspective.

Is there anyone (with the possible exception of Miller, who has been similarly criticized elsewhere, IIRC) whose position could stand up to such scrutiny and still perform the desired function?

Our standards may turn out to be a tad high…

So he does bad science and rejects good science.

oh, nevermind, I see my comments are now being held for approval.

*shrug*

Not necessarily, Ichthyic; the software here sucks rather badly.

You do have reason to shrug, though, when even after you wrote "sweet jebus, people, read his damn book, or at least read the review of the relevant material that Gert offered on Talk Reason", we still had someone writing such drivel as "The purpose of Collins’ book is to speak to people who seek reconciliation from a religious perspective, not a scientific perspective".

yes, I suspect my last two comments, which contained no profanity, or even strong words, were held up for some malfunctioning filter reasons.

I just didn't see anything in them that would trip a filter; there weren't even any links, so I just have to give up until Richard digs them out of the filter trap.

Popper's Ghost: If you think Ken Miller has ever let religion trump science, trot out some evidence; your faulty memory doesn't suffice. In addition to Miller, there are contributors to PT who qualify, as well as many other theist evolutionists who don't let their religion trump science, who always withdraw their God into the gap as science approaches or make their God so abstract as to lose all empirical import. Francis Collins is not that sort of person.

Popper's Ghost:

Our standards may turn out to be a tad high…

No higher than necessary. We're shooting ourselves in the foot if we go lower than "believe what you will, but never let it trump science".

What books have they written that could be given to the target evangelical audience?

One thing at a time. You seem to think we’re trying to jump a chasm in multiple leaps. It’s a long way, but there’s a continuum upon which to walk.

We are, after all, telling these students that it’s ok to be like Francis Collins!

Well, scientific textbooks would do.

And that’s precisely wrong, because this is not a scientific war!

Unless and until you get that into your gut

the point of my context was in context

He’s saying that Collins is better than Hovind, and only the most anal perfectionist would deny it.

RBH:

Well spoken.

Popper's Ghost: Fuck off, you arrogant asshole.

With “friends” like this…

Heck, I’m a little jealous of RBH. PG had to stoop to insulting him

all he did was argue with me

With “friends” like this…

Here's another answer to Bill Gascoyne's question: the papal encyclicals on evolution, which say that evolution is a directed process -- an unfalsifiable claim. That's much more acceptable that Francis Collin's abuse of science. As I said, anything that does not explicitly misuse the evidence to make claims contrary,/i> to what is demonstrable through science would do.