Brief Freshwater Update

Has the DI broken its silence on this case yet? If the DI is serious about not wanting "creationism" taught, one would expect some sort of disapproval of Freshwater's actions, even if smothererd by defense of his keeping his job.

As far as I know the DiscoTute has been competely silent on this one.

And why would anyone ever believe that ID/creationism is anything but religion?

Why does it almost always correlate with religious sentiments being expresses, such as in this case? More importantly, why did the IDiots bother to tell us (in the Wedge Document and elsewhere) that "material science" gives us (meaningful, rather than magical) evolution, and that religious underpinnings give us "another science"?

They're fairly wrong about that, since religion can often go along with good "material" science. Which means, of course, that it's not only religious, it's even more narrowly religious, even more narrowly Christian, than are those terms by themselves.

Glen D

http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

religious sentiments being expressed

The situation in Mount Vernon went on for decades before it came to light, after a couple became concerned about cross-shaped burn marks left on their son's arm by Freshwater's Tesla coil demonstration. New instances of preaching in classrooms crop up all the time. How many other teachers are out there, injecting religion into instruction? It's impossible to say...

Glancing at the comments on the article, I see that someone was trying the old "evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics" argument again. Sigh.... Doesn't AiG keep its "Arguments we think creationists shouldn't use" page up to date??????

Mike said: [snip] Call it framing, or just common sense, but we can't allow militant atheists who are confused about what they can, and can not, measure be the unchallenged spokesmen for the scientific community.

1. Separation of Church and state, making sure that atheist civil rights aren't infringed;
2. Logical critiques of religious ideas, i.e. anti-apologetics;
3. Defense of science (and science education) from pseudoscience.

Mike said: Call it framing, or just common sense, but we can't allow militant atheists who are confused about what they can, and can not, measure be the unchallenged spokesmen for the scientific community.

GuyeFaux said: The problem with militant atheist scientists (snip)

KP said:

Mike said: Call it framing, or just common sense, but we can't allow militant atheists who are confused about what they can, and can not, measure be the unchallenged spokesmen for the scientific community.

GuyeFaux said: The problem with militant atheist scientists (snip)

I am a scientist and I also consider myself a militant atheist. I keep the two separate very easily by also being a strong advocate for the "science has nothing to say about the validity of religion" position in defense of science. As for atheism, I can defend that position without invoking science at all. I am not familiar with other religions, but christianity has enough inherent flaws to fall on its own. I find it easy enough to stick to science in defending science.

KP said: I am a scientist and I also consider myself a militant atheist. I keep the two separate very easily by also being a strong advocate for the "science has nothing to say about the validity of religion" position in defense of science. As for atheism, I can defend that position without invoking science at all. I am not familiar with other religions, but christianity has enough inherent flaws to fall on its own. I find it easy enough to stick to science in defending science.

KP said: I keep the two separate very easily by also being a strong advocate for the "science has nothing to say about the validity of religion" position in defense of science. As for atheism, I can defend that position without invoking science at all.

...also: though your restraint in mixing your agendas as a militant atheist scientist is admirable, what if you are confronted by a fellow scientist who happens to be religious who does mix them? And what if you find his/her religious arguments, particularly as they tie into science, deeply objectionable? Since you're a militant atheist, defending your own civil liberties ought to (or at least might) take precedence over your pro-science agenda, no?

Mike said: If we can achieve a general understanding that science has nothing to say about the validity of religion, and that science education is religiously neutral, then this whole problem will evaporate away

And why would anyone ever believe that ID/creationism is anything but religion?

— Glen Davidson

GuyeFaux said: But I find it harder to believe that you can defend atheism in a non-scientific way (not to say that such defenses doesn't exist). In a protracted argument one eventually gets hit with "but there's no explanation for X without God(s)". X can be morality, apparent design of organisms, human spirituality, whatever. And even if one does somehow bend over backwards to avoid mentioning the relevant science, ones gets labeled a militant atheist (ad hominem) anyway when you do defend science. So politically you'll get the same objections.

GuyeFaux said: ...what if you are confronted by a fellow scientist who happens to be religious who does mix them? And what if you find his/her religious arguments, particularly as they tie into science, deeply objectionable?

KP said: Glancing at the comments on the article, I see that someone was trying the old "evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics" argument again. Sigh.... Doesn't AiG keep its "Arguments we think creationists shouldn't use" page up to date??????

As for atheism, I can defend that position without invoking science at all.

— KP

KP said: [among other things the following, though I cut out a lot:] Well, when fundamentalists have left comments here, I confront them with inherent problems with literal biblical interpretations (one needs look no further than the first few pages of Genesis to find a few). The questions I ask usually go unanswered. There is a whole bible full of defenses for atheism. Even with something like morality, I can point to some of the Lord's behavior in the Old Testament and argue that I want no part of that sort of morality.

GuyeFaux said: ...what if you are confronted by a fellow scientist who happens to be religious who does mix them? And what if you find his/her religious arguments, particularly as they tie into science, deeply objectionable?

I can't think of any scientist who has a firm grasp on the science who can't see where the boundaries of science and religion are.

If we can achieve a general understanding that science has nothing to say about the validity of religion, and that science education is religiously neutral, then this whole problem will evaporate away...

For too many deeply religious people, such an understanding is impossible: their religion means everything to them, everything has to be about their religion, and their religion has to be about everything. Any thought, idea or reasoning not explicitly connected to their religion, be it big or small, is simply intolerable to them. If it's not about their God, it's about the Devil. There's nothing in between or separate, no second dimension in their scale of measurement.

GuyeFaux said: Many noted religious scientists have published books on their religion, which beliefs were bolstered by their understanding of science.

Obviously if you think that advancing science and science education is more important than atheism advocacy, you will check your religious critiques. But would you expect more militant atheists to do so?

John Kwok said: IMHO, yours [KP's] is the only reasonable position to take.

GuyeFaux said: Why do you think so, considering that other atheists would reasonably consider 1) atheist civil rights and 2) religious discourse to be at least as important as 3) science education and advocacy?

Of course Professors Myers and Dawkins have every right to advocate atheism, and also to defend good science. The difficulty of doing both is a purely tactical one, and has nothing to do with their rights or the rightness of their position in either case.

That tactical difficulty is that the first of these pursuits has negative impact on their effectiveness in doing the second. Most Americans are deists whose rejection of atheism is less intellectual than visceral. It is they who must remain convinced that only good science should be taught in science classrooms. Associating atheism with that position is only going to undermine it in their minds, which is exactly what fundamentalist loons want to happen.

Such undermining is unreasonable, certainly. Science does not imply atheism. The Theory of Evolution does not imply atheism. Nevertheless, associating them is bad tactics that could lead to disaster. And Professors Myers and Dawkins are having that effect.

I think there are two very different flavors of atheism being mixed together here. The first is the formal dictionary notion of the philosophical position that no gods exist within any meaningful concept of what it is to "exist".

But the flavor we're always fighting here is, that atheism is the omission of the fundamentalist's personal god from playing the critical unavoidable primary role He MUST be accorded. Those practicing this omission are "creationists' atheists". Where doctrine is regarded as unambiguous, where it flat out says "our god DID this and that, and here's HOW he did it, and here's exactly what it looked like" then you either accept this at face value, or you ARE an atheist. You cannot be neutral. The creationists' atheist is anyone who does not START by presuming the literal historical accuracy of specific accounts of specific fables, and work from there.

KP said:

GuyeFaux said: Why do you think so, considering that other atheists would reasonably consider 1) atheist civil rights and 2) religious discourse to be at least as important as 3) science education and advocacy?

I won't claim to speak for all atheists, but regarding #2, I personally don't think about religious discourse much. I usually only have it when some fundamentalist claims that the Bible is absolute truth. The "discourse" usually ends when they can't answer for some biblical canard I've pointed out. Regarding #1, I don't think there's a lot of public discrimination against atheists because how do you tell if someone is an atheist? Atheists aren't forbidden from the lunch counter or forced to use separate drinking fountains. I'm sure there are fundamentalists who would impose such things and worse on atheists if they could, but spotting atheism is not as easy as spotting dark skin or homosexuality. [really funny example, a lit up execution device on a hill...]

GuyeFaux said: So while I agree with Dave Luckett, that pressing this agenda is tactically poor w.r.t. the important goal of improving science education and public understanding of science, you can't reasonably expect militant atheists to not press this agenda.

Dave Luckett said: Such undermining is unreasonable, certainly. Science does not imply atheism. The Theory of Evolution does not imply atheism. Nevertheless, associating them is bad tactics that could lead to disaster. And Professors Myers and Dawkins are having that effect.

I regret not making my meaning sufficiently clear.

I believe that if the same high-profile scientists advocate for both atheism and science education in public, it is likely that these two separate advocacies will become conflated in the public mind, notwithstanding the fact that they are quite distinct. That is, the general public - or a significant proportion of it - will come to associate science and/or science education with atheism.

I believe that from the point of view of science education, (which is a professional responsibility of scientists in general and the two professors mentioned in particular) such an association would be strongly counterproductive - a tactical error. In the US at least, it would have serious effects, given that a strong majority of the US population are convinced and practising deists of various types.

As for evidence, I wonder what would suffice? Such a general association hasn't happened yet, so it's hypothetical, although it appears to me to be a reasonable possibility. I know that the whackaloons out on the creationist fringe would be delighted if a majority were to conflate science education with learning atheism. They've been pushing that line for decades, and (so far) haven't gotten far with it. But the two gentlemen mentioned are providing them with at least some ammunition, and I can't think that this is helping science education.

Mike said:

The situation in Mount Vernon went on for decades before it came to light, after a couple became concerned about cross-shaped burn marks left on their son's arm by Freshwater's Tesla coil demonstration. New instances of preaching in classrooms crop up all the time. How many other teachers are out there, injecting religion into instruction? It's impossible to say...

Please take note all those who insist that the courts will take care of it. There aren't enough courts in the universe, and no one is going to bring the cases anyway. Like it or not, you can't equate science education with atheism and expect a good outcome. The political outcome is obvious. If we can achieve a general understanding that science has nothing to say about the validity of religion, and that science education is religiously neutral, then this whole problem will evaporate away and we'll all have to find other hobbies. Call it framing, or just common sense, but we can't allow militant atheists who are confused about what they can, and can not, measure be the unchallenged spokesmen for the scientific community.

Mike said:

KP said: I keep the two separate very easily by also being a strong advocate for the "science has nothing to say about the validity of religion" position in defense of science. As for atheism, I can defend that position without invoking science at all.

That's fantastic. You're in the company of Carl Sagan and Jacob Bronowski, two atheist popularizers of science who didn't find it necessary to frame science education as an attack on religion.

Dave Luckett said: I believe that if the same high-profile scientists advocate for both atheism and science education in public, it is likely that these two separate advocacies will become conflated in the public mind, notwithstanding the fact that they are quite distinct. That is, the general public - or a significant proportion of it - will come to associate science and/or science education with atheism.

Dave Luckett said:

GuyeFaux said: So while I agree with Dave Luckett, that pressing this agenda is tactically poor w.r.t. the important goal of improving science education and public understanding of science, you can't reasonably expect militant atheists to not press this agenda.

I would agree, if it were not for the unfortunate fact that both of the gentlemen in question have a professional duty to publicly advocate for science and science education. They have a right, in addition, to advocate for atheism (or any other position).

If it can be shown that their promotion of atheism detracts from their effectiveness as science educators (and I think it can be so shown) then they need to reassess their priorities. Nobody - well, at least not I - would argue with their rights. Their rights are not in question. But I do question their committment to the public advocacy for science which is part and parcel of their profession, as opposed to their committment to what is essentially a private cause.

The thread has diverged a little, so here's a review of
Questions of Truth by John Knox

..."a physicist who became a Church of England vicar, which makes people think that he has a special line into the science-religion question. Were he a vicar who gave up the Church of England to become a physicist he would not be regarded as anything more special than sensible; but this is how the world wags.
"

Back to Freshwater, IMO the worst thing he did was to tell his students that (paraphrasing) "Science is wrong because it says that homosexuality is not a choice, but the bible says it is a sin, therefore it must be a choice."

That has real potential to destroy lives.

eric said: [snip] If an atheist does something analogous - talks about atheism as a philosophical stance and throws in science as support - then not only do I think the public will conflate the two, I think the public is right to think that the speaker is conflating the two.

GuyeFaux said: So you think that their professional obligations are more important than their civic and moral ones.

The advocacy I meant (and militant activists practice) is notably not for a private cause: it's for a civil one. This makes a huge difference.

GuyeFaux said:

John Kwok said: IMHO, yours [KP's] is the only reasonable position to take.

Why do you think so, considering that other atheists would reasonably consider 1) atheist civil rights and 2) religious discourse to be at least as important as 3) science education and advocacy? And in general I continue to be surprised by your continued surprise at PZ. Not referring to your getting banned (which was kind of tragic), but your surprise at his bashing of Dr. Miller, in light of his stated priorities. The Pharyngula is self described as "Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal". Clearly PZ takes the "godless", the "liberal", and hi s ideological opponents' caricature of him seriously.

GuyeFaux said: Out of curiosity, why do you think spotting homosexuality is easier than spotting atheism? I mean homosexuals other than Republican elected officials with rabid-anti-gay agendas? (J.k., on the second part, though I'm curious about your purported gaydar, particularly when the area homosexuals are not allowed to have a civil marriage).

Regarding public discrimination against atheists, consider (off the top of my head) [Four very good examples] IMHO atheists are somewhere between homosexuals and women w.r.t. discrimination. So yeah, it's not as bad as having to use a separate drinking fountain, but it's still kind of annoying. So it's definitely not a non-issue, particularly if you have to deal bigots frequently (e.g. when they think they can teach you a thing or two about Creation.) So while I agree with Dave Luckett, that pressing this agenda is tactically poor w.r.t. the important goal of improving science education and public understanding of science, you can't reasonably expect militant atheists to not press this agenda.

Dave Luckett said: [snip] I do not think that they have any obligation whatsoever, civil or moral, to advocate atheism. By all means they may do so, but they are in no way obliged to do it; and if they choose to do it, they (quite likely) detract from their power to support and advocate for science education, as I have already argued.

The advocacy I meant (and militant activists practice) is notably not for a private cause: it's for a civil one. This makes a huge difference.

How is advocating a religious position, or one that is opposed to religion, a "civil cause" under the Constitution of the United States?

On the contrary, it is precisely, only, solely and completely, a "private cause". Consider: if religion, or its lack, or any advocacy for any position regarding it were a "civil cause", it would rightly be the concern of the civil authorities, as indeed it once was. Spare us from that.

I repeat, nobody is questioning the right of these gentlemen to advocate for atheism. I am questioning only their wisdom in doing so, if they wish their advocacy for science education to have maximum effect. [snip]

Dear GuyeFaux and KP,

I should add too that those moderate atheists I heard criticizing Dawkins just happen to be fellow Britons (or were educated at prominent British universities). Their comments were quite reminiscient to those I had heard given by eminent philosopher of science Philip Kitcher on the evening of February 12th here in New York City (He also expressed a view that Dawkins's militant atheism is counterproductive.).

What Dawkins and Myers and others who agree with them should recognize is that they are allowing themselves to fall into the creationist trap of "belief in evolution equals denial of GOD", and thus, allowing them to make the argument that "Darwinism" is actually a religious faith in disguise.

Regards,

John

John Kwok said: [snip] What Dawkins and Myers and others who agree with them should recognize is that they are allowing themselves to fall into the creationist trap of "belief in evolution equals denial of GOD", and thus, allowing them to make the argument that "Darwinism" is actually a religious faith in disguise.

GuyeFaux said:

John Kwok said: [snip] What Dawkins and Myers and others who agree with them should recognize is that they are allowing themselves to fall into the creationist trap of "belief in evolution equals denial of GOD", and thus, allowing them to make the argument that "Darwinism" is actually a religious faith in disguise.

I submit that they do recognize this, that their non-science advocacy is counterproductive. I don't see any evidence that they are ignorant of this fact: Of course assaulting somebody on more than one front, religious and scientific, is less likely to work than assaulting on just one front. Of course insulting your peers is going to be counterproductive to your mutual goals. I don't think any sane person is oblivious to this. But nevertheless these scientists are morally compelled to do these things, for valid reasons.

John Kwok said: I'm not sure if I can concur with your observation, especially when I have heard recently several historians of science and at least one philosopher of science who've come to a completely different conclusion:

[snip] I have to wonder whether Dawkins and Myers are morally compelled to be such strident militant atheists, or instead, does their mutual compulsion indicate something that says more about them as individuals than it does regarding their beliefs.

GuyeFaux said:

John Kwok said: I'm not sure if I can concur with your observation, especially when I have heard recently several historians of science and at least one philosopher of science who've come to a completely different conclusion:

That's an argument from authority. What did these authorities say?

[snip] I have to wonder whether Dawkins and Myers are morally compelled to be such strident militant atheists, or instead, does their mutual compulsion indicate something that says more about them as individuals than it does regarding their beliefs.

And that's an evidence free ad hominem. What does it say about them as individuals? And given that I gave argument and evidence for why they are morally and civilly compelled, what evidence do you have that they are not?

John Kwok said: GuyeFaux, I think it is interesting that I have heard the same reaction to Dawkins from several British (or British-trained) historians and one philosopher of science, which I have recounted already:

GuyeFaux said:

eric said: [snip] If an atheist does something analogous - talks about atheism as a philosophical stance and throws in science as support - then not only do I think the public will conflate the two, I think the public is right to think that the speaker is conflating the two.

Why do you think that the public is right?

And why is it objectionable to bring it [one's own scientific background] up in advocating for their religious ideas, other than for tactical considerations? Do you find it equally objectionable to bring up one's background and profession while advocating for religious ideas,

If your religion claims that (say) God wiped out all life on earth except for one boatful of refugees a few thousand years ago, then your religion is in conflict with science and that is _your own fault_ for believing the crazy. An awful lot of people on this comment thread seem to want scientists to act nicely and pretend there's no problem while creationists muscle their way into science classes and demand equal time for doctrines that have no more validity than a flat earth. Activists for science, atheism or both are not the cause of the problem.

I find it objectionable because a scientific background does not make one an expert in theology. Intentionally making a big deal about one’s scientific credentials is very often a sign that the speaker is using them to illegitimately claim expertise where they have none. So I question the motive of the speakers who bring up their scientific creds in a theological debate.

If it can be shown that their promotion of atheism detracts from their effectiveness as science educators (and I think it can be so shown)

Then please, by all means, do so.

Hint:

ask all of the students PZ has taught while at UMM whether they think he's a poor science educator because of his atheist position.

ask all graduate students in biology who have read Dawkins conceptual science books if they do a poor job of educating them on issues relating to evolution and biology because Dawkins is an atheist.

I think you won't find the answer to fit your preconception.

This is not comparing PZ to Behe (that's a piss poor comparison), if anything, it would be more like comparing PZ and Dawkins to Miller or Collins.

if you want to do THAT, fine and dandy. Let's see whose ideas interfere more with "the teaching of science".

go and analyze Collins' moral law argument, and see if you think that would be a great thing to teach science students.

sorry, but bottom line, atheism DOES fit better with science education. There's simply no way around it.

just like many of us for years have said of ID:

"Find me the designer, and then we can talk science."

It applies equally well to theistic evolutionists as it does to any ID supporter.

I'm so sick of this idea that somehow atheism is a religion unto itself. It's bloody not. You're BORN an atheist; it's the default position.

sorry, but bottom line, atheism DOES fit better with science education. There’s simply no way around it.

THANKS for these updates. I find them fascinating. I feel sorry for Freshwater, I hate that he's part of a group turning his junior high into a theological seminary, I realize it's a smaller issue than in Texas, but it's an interesting story.

These updates are unique.

Ichthyic said: If it can be shown that their promotion of atheism detracts from their effectiveness as science educators (and I think it can be so shown) Then please, by all means, do so. Hint: ask all of the students PZ has taught while at UMM whether they think he's a poor science educator because of his atheist position. ask all graduate students in biology who have read Dawkins conceptual science books if they do a poor job of educating them on issues relating to evolution and biology because Dawkins is an atheist. I think you won't find the answer to fit your preconception.

sorry, but bottom line, atheism DOES fit better with science education. There's simply no way around it.

just like many of us for years have said of ID: "Find me the designer, and then we can talk science." It applies equally well to theistic evolutionists as it does to any ID supporter.

I'm so sick of this idea that somehow atheism is a religion unto itself. It's bloody not.

You're BORN an atheist; it's the default position.

Science simply does not appeal to the supernatural in its application.

which mean that those ideologies that do are in necessary conflict with it.

how again does this support your postion?

The sample you propose is obviously irrelevant to the question of how the general public receives the double message that Dawkins and Myers are both advocates of the Theory of Evolution and advocates for atheism, specifically, whether the latter vitiates their effectiveness as to the former.

this is called moving goalposts. The issue you initially raised was one of education, not public perception.

again, show me where the atheism that Dawkins or Meyers espouses INTERFERES with any of their posts wrt to educating science itself. Either on their personal blogs, or in anything they have ever written.

I'll answer for you:

it doesn't.

In fact, what interferes with the "education" of the public is the public's perception itself. I would say that on THAT side of things, influencing the direction of debate wrt to public opinion, both Dawkins and Meyers have done a fantastic job.

ever heard of the Overton Window?

Yet all human societies, without any known exception whatever, have developed religion.

I think, with but little research, you would find this entirely inaccurate.
Moreover, it's also the case that you would likely lump the "religion" of say, a South American Indian tribe with that of the Abrahamic traditions?

that's an awful big tent you've got there.

what about Buddhism?

The theistic evolutionist replies that there is no reason to suppose that a God capable of making the Universe would need to intervene in detail during the processes of life; that in fact requiring Him to do so is to restrict and belittle Him.

then the theistic evolutionist has no reason to define a god to begin with.

It's entirely superfluous.

Have you ever read Larry Moran's essay on the subject?

perhaps you should:

http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Theistic_Evolution.html

As to atheism being default condition, you might as well argue that you are born a geocentrist.

I would have chosen flat-earther as an analogy, but the point is, you must be taught a religion.

or did you miss the whole point about why many of us are fighting NOT to have ID/creationism taught in public school science classes?

It is, however, a position on the existence of God or gods, and on the truth of religion.

It is a position on whether one thinks god or gods exist (by definition), it is not a position on "truth". religions themselves decide that, and only for themselves. a different religion decides on a different "truth".

atheism is no more an active endeavor, in and of itself, than not stamp collecting.

IMO, this is why theistic evolutionists even exist to begin with: There is no physical evidence whatsoever that there are, or ever were, any deities in existence. Hence, to reconcile that fact, many have modified their religions to place their deity at such a level as to be irrelevant to any observable evidence.

It makes perfect sense to do so from a logical standpoint, but it's also nothing more than a god-of-the-gaps argument, taken to the endpoint.

Also, you keep seeming to make the false argument that atheism makes the positive claim, when it's theism that must do so.

again, atheism is a LACK of belief. we don't start off believing, because there simply is no evidence to support belief. One has to be convinced that there is a reason for "faith".

and Flint, I KNOW you get this.

I suppose the problem is, people are generally not comfortable with such abstract (and essentially unnecessary) gods.

just so.

which of course, is exactly why atheism fits better with a career in science.

why bother with the unnecessary baggage?

Ichthyic said: Science simply does not appeal to the supernatural in its application. which mean that those ideologies that do are in necessary conflict with it.

The sample you propose is obviously irrelevant to the question of how the general public receives the double message that Dawkins and Myers are both advocates of the Theory of Evolution and advocates for atheism, specifically, whether the latter vitiates their effectiveness as to the former. this is called moving goalposts. The issue you initially raised was one of education, not public perception.

again, show me where the atheism that Dawkins or Meyers espouses INTERFERES with any of their posts wrt to educating science itself. Either on their personal blogs, or in anything they have ever written. I'll answer for you: it doesn't.

In fact, what interferes with the "education" of the public is the public's perception itself. I would say that on THAT side of things, influencing the direction of debate wrt to public opinion, both Dawkins and Meyers have done a fantastic job. ever heard of the Overton Window?

Yet all human societies, without any known exception whatever, have developed religion. I think, with but little research, you would find this entirely inaccurate.

Moreover, it's also the case that you would likely lump the "religion" of say, a South American Indian tribe with that of the Abrahamic traditions? that's an awful big tent you've got there.

what about Buddhism?

The theistic evolutionist replies that there is no reason to suppose that a God capable of making the Universe would need to intervene in detail during the processes of life; that in fact requiring Him to do so is to restrict and belittle Him. then the theistic evolutionist has no reason to define a god to begin with. It's entirely superfluous. Have you ever read Larry Moran's essay on the subject? perhaps you should: http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Theistic_Evolution.html

No, only that they are irrelevant to it. The two are not the same.

tell it to Francis Collins. He doesn't seem to think so.

Education about evolution specifically includes correcting any public perception that it implies atheism, because it does not, and correcting misapprehension is part of education.

*sigh* you just don't get it. If I say that evolution does not require input from a creator, and it doesn't, you're just playing games to say this does not imply that it's inherently atheistic. Apparently, the term itself makes you uncomfortable.

I understand the tactical game (play up theistic evolution as an alternative), and it works, sometimes (witness Ohio), but I really think you guys are getting lost in thinking about what the end game is.

NOMA is a functional bandaid, not a supportable conclusion.

I think not, and I have done considerable research.

I'm not buying that. I rather think the religious tend to project their conceptualizations of religion onto other cultures, thus defining their cultures as "religious", when they really aren't.

That is the point, is it not?

that you're constructing a big-top circus tent of irrelevancy?

yup.

Whether or not God actually exists has no bearing on the fact that most Americans are deists who believe that He does

...and so you would sell out science for tactics.

like i said, don't lose the big picture for the small gains.

The only people who profit from rancour between us are creationist propagandists who are trying to drive a wedge into rationalism itself.

if it's the creationist propagandists that are doing this, and it is, then why attack PZ and Dawkins for exposing the fundamental flaws in their thinking?

again I would ask you if you understand the concept of the Overton Window?

before the likes of Dawkins, debate on atheism in this country was much more private than public. I know you want to think the two issues (science and religion) are unrelated, but I for one do not think that's the case. The very idea of how to understand the world without invoking deities is at the core of the birth of science itself.

People STILL need to get used to the idea that we don't need to invoke Thor to explain thunderstorms.

Francis Collins is a theistic evolutionist who holds that God exists, and who believes that God is active in the Universe through means that we recognise as "natural", including evolution. He does not believe, and would hold that there is no need to believe, in supernatural intervention in the processes of evolution. What is there in this that contradicts the statement that ideologies that accept the existence of the supernatural are irrelevant to science?

"you just don’t get it. If I say that evolution does not require input from a creator, and it doesn’t, you’re just playing games to say this does not imply that it’s inherently atheistic."

You seem to be contradicting yourself. Evolution is atheistic, if by that term you mean that it works without divine intervention. But that does not imply that it is accepted only by atheists, as your chosen example of Francis Collins demonstrates. By in effect insisting that evolution is atheistic in that sense, you are making the Theory of Evolution less acceptable to Americans and increasing their resistance to it. It is that which, as you say, I don't get.

"I understand the tactical game (play up theistic evolution as an alternative), and it works, sometimes (witness Ohio), but I really think you guys are getting lost in thinking about what the end game is."

To me the goal is better public education in science generally and the Theory of Evolution in particular, so that the overwhelming majority accepts ToE as the best and only scientific explanation for the origin of the species. To think that far ahead is far enough for me. If all the public surveys I have seen are any guide, that much is far from being achieved.

But by all means, let us not lose the goal. What do you think it is?

In general, I shall gloss over the rest. It is plain that you find any tolerance of religion or religious thought, or reference to its pervasiveness in human society, to be offensive. I cannot otherwise account for your tone. For my part, I have been careful to excise any suggestion of sarcasm, and all personalities whatsoever, and I have no wish to attack atheism or atheists. I have the horrible feeling that they might be right.

And I am not attacking P Z Myers or Richard Dawkins for exposing the fundamental flaws in creationist thinking. On the contrary, I wish they would do that more. I am criticising them for losing sight of the objective.

For the objective of science education is not to convert the world to atheism, no matter how desirable that might be thought to be. One vital objective of it is to improve the public understanding of science in general and the Theory of Evolution in particular. That objective can be reached without insisting that evolution is atheistic, or suggesting that only atheists accept it. On the contrary, that insistance and that suggestion is plainly counterproductive.

As for PZ’s bashing of Ken Miller, I regard that as counterproductive, merely because here you have one prominent critic of creationism (PZ) attacking another, simply because the other person (Ken Miller) is religiously devout (AND RECOGNIZES that he shouldn’t conflate his personal religious views with what he accepts as valid science).

— John Kwok

Ichthyic said: sorry, but bottom line, atheism DOES fit better with science education. There's simply no way around it.

GuyeFaux said:

John Kwok said: GuyeFaux, I think it is interesting that I have heard the same reaction to Dawkins from several British (or British-trained) historians and one philosopher of science, which I have recounted already:

Seriously, you gotta cut out the argument from authority. Let me get this straight: you "have heard recently several historians of science and at least one philosopher of science who’ve come to a completely different conclusion" than mine, and you got the "same reaction [as me] to Dawkins from several British (or British-trained) historians and one philosopher of science"? Who are these philosophers and historians of science who are having this debate, and what did they say? Which of them said that they thought Dawkins was not aware that his atheist advocacy is politically imprudent to advancing science education?

RBH said: But it's not a theological debate. In my reading of him, Dawkins generally makes a straight-forward point: the purported existence of the Abrahamic God leads its followers to make claims about properties of the world that are testable via the methodology(ies) of science (e.g., double-blind testing of the purported effects of intercessory prayer), and when those tests fail, as they do, then the science legitimately has something to say about the purported existence of that particular kind of supernatural agent. Scientific credentials are perfectly appropriately claimed in that sort of discussion.

And I am not attacking P Z Myers or Richard Dawkins for exposing the fundamental flaws in creationist thinking. On the contrary, I wish they would do that more. I am criticising them for losing sight of the objective. For the objective of science education is not to convert the world to atheism, no matter how desirable that might be thought to be. One vital objective of it is to improve the public understanding of science in general and the Theory of Evolution in particular. That objective can be reached without insisting that evolution is atheistic, or suggesting that only atheists accept it. On the contrary, that insistance and that suggestion is plainly counterproductive.

RBH said: But that's not the strategy of Dawkins, Myers, Coyne, and their allies. Their goal is to push to a more rational society that takes into account actual evidence, as distinguished from revelation

Damn, people. This is a SIMPLE situation.

1) It's illegal to promote one particular sectarian dogma in taxpayer funded public schools. This is essentially because people of all religions or no religion have the obligation to pay taxes and the right to use public schools. That's the way the US constitution works. We don't have one official religion; we have freedom of religion and conscience, enforced by the constitution.

It's illegal for a taxpayer-funded fire department to refuse to respond to a fire at a Mormon temple, on the grounds of dislike of Mormonism, for example, or for EXACTLY THE SAME REASON.

2) It makes no difference whatsoever what atheists say in forums in which they have full freedom of expression.

Constitutional rights are not dependent on the condition that all atheists must be polite and reasonable, nor on the condition that all religious beliefs can be logically defended, either.

You can't preach sectarian religious dogma as "science" in taxpayer funded schools. It doesn't matter whether or not some atheists are obnoxious. It doesn't matter whether some people choose to hold private religious beliefs that don't seem logical.

If you're hired to teach a science curriculum in a public school, you can't use classroom time to say "Now I'm going to tell you kids why devotion to Vishnu is the only valid religion".

You can't do that, even though some atheists are "strident". You can't do that, even though some leading biologists are devoutly religious. You can't do that, even though the private, legal creationism museum in Kentucky is a ludicrous pile of irrational, dishonest, and fraudulent crap.

You can't do it because the constitution of the United States guarantees freedom of religion, and devotion to Vishnu can neither be promoted with favoritism by the US government, nor suppressed in a discriminatory way when practiced legally in private situations, either.

It's really that simple.

Flint,

I think your following rebuttal to Ichythic is flawed.

"And so a competent atheist scientist can think there are no gods and think of himself as finding out how nature works, and a competent theistic scientist can believe there are gods, and regard himself as discovering the details of how those gods choose to operate. Neither position represents either an enlightenment or a conceptual burden."

Being a metaphysical naturalist, an atheist scientist can effortlessly practice methodological naturalism. A theistic scientist who regards himself as discovering the details of how gods choose to operate (i.e., the details of supernatural intervention) has thrown methodological naturalism out the window.

Clearly, the theist has a conceptual burden the atheist lacks.

Dean:

Apparently not, since (as has been pointed out) a very large percentage of practicing scientists, including many of the very best of them, in all fields, are also active members of various faiths that posit the action of the supernatural in some shape or form.

I think Ichythic is, perhaps unconsciously, using the creationist concept of an atheiest - one who OMITS the creationist god (in the same way as the teacher omitted cherry ice cream) from the discussion, analysis, or understanding of anything at all.

And so we have these two sides of this argument: Those who argue (as you do) that there is no neutral, that the gods are NEVER irrelevant, and that anyone who sincerely believes in any gods CANNOT omit them from science or anything else. And those for whom the gods generate methodological naturalism, through mechanisms and for reasons forever unknowable. But the fruits of their efforts are nonetheless best revealed through the scientific method.

From the view of such a Believer, it is the atheist who suffers the burden, because the atheist has ruled out the actions of the gods a priori - he has consciously and purposefully decided that one possible explanation for why nature works the way it does is not to be entertained for philosophical reasons.

Now, I don't personally see any handicap faced by either camp. Neither has a monopoly on the inspired and dedicated application of the scientific method, and neither has the slightest reason to doubt the results beyond an understanding of the methodological limitations of that method.

...does not believe, and would hold that there is no need to believe, in supernatural intervention in the processes of evolution.

It's actually hard to believe you can say that about Collins.

uh, I guess you didn't know he was a special creationist, right? That man must be a creation of a deity because of morality?

You have read his big book, right?

look, I'm tired of arguing this with someone who hasn't a clue what the arguments of the actual players are.

I'm tagging in Jerry Coyne:

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/04/22/truckling-to-the-faithful-a-spoonful-of-jesus-helps-darwin-go-down/

argue with him.

that the majority of the world's mainstream scientists manage to do a competent job while being religious.

except the majority of scientist, even in the US, AREN'T religious.

for whatever that's worth.

RBH said: A good deal of the heat in this discussion has the appearance of being generated by differences about tactics, but in fact that's not the case. It's a difference in goals that produces the tactical differences, and it's that difference in goals that should be our focus. Dave Luckett wrote

And I am not attacking P Z Myers or Richard Dawkins for exposing the fundamental flaws in creationist thinking. On the contrary, I wish they would do that more. I am criticising them for losing sight of the objective. For the objective of science education is not to convert the world to atheism, no matter how desirable that might be thought to be. One vital objective of it is to improve the public understanding of science in general and the Theory of Evolution in particular. That objective can be reached without insisting that evolution is atheistic, or suggesting that only atheists accept it. On the contrary, that insistance and that suggestion is plainly counterproductive.

But that's not the strategy of Dawkins, Myers, Coyne, and their allies. Their goal is to push to a more rational society that takes into account actual evidence, as distinguished from revelation, sacred books of uncertain provenance and reliability, and private voices in one's head. The goal Dave Luckett describes is more modest: to defend and support the teaching of our best science, including evolution, in the public schools. The question is whether the former hurts the latter. Over the years I've come to believe that it doesn't; that defending rationality and evidence-based thinking as a general goal is a worthy and necessary task that has ramifications for the latter but does not hurt it. A lot of electrons have been sacrificed in the argument, but I've seen precious little data on either side. I'd kind of like to see that. My own view isn't evidence-based; I've been involved in the battles for decades and have only anecdotes, but they're not dispositive. So one pays one's money and takes one's choice, and sniping at each other is the main fruitless and counter-productive undertaking here.

Flint,

Thanks for responding.

I agree with you completely that many fine scientists are people of faith. What I said about theistic scientists throwing methodological naturalism out the window was wrong, not to mention inflammatory.

No matter how strongly theistic scientists believe supernatural forces are at work in the universe, they must limit themselves to natural explanations of observed phenomena when practicing science. That is my understanding of methodological naturalism.

Essentially, while on the clock a theistic scientist puts aside supernatural intervention, which they may fervently believe in, as an explanatory option. I see that as an exercise in self-discipline, a burden if you will.

Granted, the vast majority of theistic scientists shoulder that burden just fine, but atheists are free of it altogether.

No matter how strongly theistic scientists believe supernatural forces are at work in the universe, they must limit themselves to natural explanations of observed phenomena when practicing science.

Essentially, while on the clock a theistic scientist puts aside supernatural intervention

There's been an added attraction. Lori Miller, the teacher who prayed over students in the halls and who didn't know "sharing her faith" was a problem, has apparently brought a grievance against the district under the master contract. That's all I know at the moment -- that's a religious news site, and I have no other info.

Ichthyic said: ...does not believe, and would hold that there is no need to believe, in supernatural intervention in the processes of evolution. It's actually hard to believe you can say that about Collins. uh, I guess you didn't know he was a special creationist, right? That man must be a creation of a deity because of morality? You have read his big book, right? look, I'm tired of arguing this with someone who hasn't a clue what the arguments of the actual players are. I'm tagging in Jerry Coyne: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/04/22/truckling-to-the-faithful-a-spoonful-of-jesus-helps-darwin-go-down/ argue with him.

In brief: the fact that Collins believes that God implaced in Man a moral sense at some point in the past - an event that did not have a physical aspect

an event that did not have a physical aspect?

you do realize that the reason Collins is roundly criticized for his Moral Law argument is that there is a fuckload of evidence to indicate that ethics and "morality" evolved just like all other animal behavior.

He completely ignored two entire schools of discipline in order to reach his conclusion.

are you in danger of doing the same?

and yet, you insist religion has nothing to do with good science education...

I'm laughing.

why do you think Collins completely ignored the entire discipline of ethology and animal behavior, as well as human psychology and the effects of physical trauma on the brain and behavior?

the mind tends to filter in order to maintain that particular level of compartmentalization.

frankly, I hope YOU don't teach biology or behavior at beyond the elementary school level.

hmm, perhaps you might want to start off with a review:

http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/korthof83.htm

scroll down to the area where Collins' Moral Law argument is dissected.

the loser will be science education, science funding and public support for science.

Idle threats from an idle mind.

again, for your tiny brain, this isn't about tactical strategy. I made it quite clear that the "NOMA" tactical strategy can and has worked, regardless of the fundamental flaws inherent in it.

However, if we are forced to curtail debate over issues of the philosophy or practice of science, simply to placate the fundies, we've already lost.

Granted, the vast majority of theistic scientists shoulder that burden just fine, but atheists are free of it altogether.

just so.

No doubt you will interpret my refusal to further engage with you as victory. Enjoy!

And I hope that you will have better cause to celebrate if you achieve what your real enemies most urgently desire, and actually conflate atheism with science in the public mind. But I doubt that you would find the results much to your liking.

Ichthyic said: that the majority of the world's mainstream scientists manage to do a competent job while being religious. except the majority of scientist, even in the US, AREN'T religious. for whatever that's worth.

GuyeFaux said: So you think that their professional obligations are more important than their civic and moral ones.

eric said:

Ichthyic said: that the majority of the world's mainstream scientists manage to do a competent job while being religious. except the majority of scientist, even in the US, AREN'T religious. for whatever that's worth.

Ichthyic, I'd like to see what data you used to come to that conclusion. Ecklund's 2005 survey of ~1600 university scientists had a 75% response rate, and found that about 1/3 identify as atheist, 1/3 agnostic, and 1/3 believers. The situation is a bit complex because about 48% of university scientists identify with some faith tradition, which probably is best interpreted as meaning that the people who identified as agnostic do not all mean the same thing by that label. She also found that approximately 2/3 of university-employed physical scientists consider themselves "spiritual." Now, I will grant you that this shows the scientific community is much less religious than the general public. And I will also grant that if you want to go by the 48% number or count agnostics as "not religious" you can legitimately claim most scientists aren't religious.

Mike Holloway said:

eric said:

Ichthyic said: that the majority of the world's mainstream scientists manage to do a competent job while being religious. except the majority of scientist, even in the US, AREN'T religious. for whatever that's worth.

Ichthyic, I'd like to see what data you used to come to that conclusion. Ecklund's 2005 survey of ~1600 university scientists had a 75% response rate, and found that about 1/3 identify as atheist, 1/3 agnostic, and 1/3 believers. The situation is a bit complex because about 48% of university scientists identify with some faith tradition, which probably is best interpreted as meaning that the people who identified as agnostic do not all mean the same thing by that label. She also found that approximately 2/3 of university-employed physical scientists consider themselves "spiritual." Now, I will grant you that this shows the scientific community is much less religious than the general public. And I will also grant that if you want to go by the 48% number or count agnostics as "not religious" you can legitimately claim most scientists aren't religious.

I think this should be an indication of the degree of self-delusion among militant atheists. They're acting on the unshakable belief that we're in the mist of huge social change, on the cusp of a new enlightenment. The data for this is not convincing. It seems that its on this mistaken belief that they're comfortable insisting that being insulting and extreme will push the majority toward a proscience attitude.

Mike Holloway said:

GuyeFaux said: So you think that their professional obligations are more important than their civic and moral ones.

Not wanting to speak for anyone else, but the thing is that the two categories should have equal importance. An atheist scientist should have the intelligence, social conscience, and tolerance to be able to promote science education among fundamentalists, and at other times promoting civil rights for atheists, by appealing to their intelligence, social conscience, and tolerance. Going into a UK public school classroom and telling kids that their religion is false, as Dawkins has done, most likely hurts both his agendas.

phantomreader42 said: So, Mike, let me get this straight: A religious fanatic, in addition to using a government job to proseletyze to a captive audience in flagrant violation of the law, BRANDS A MINOR CHILD WITH THE SYMBOL OF HIS CULT!. You, in your infinite wisdom, blame "militant atheists" for this.

Flint,

With all due respect, the thrust of your last comment seems to be that "natural" and "supernatural" can be considered synonymous terms, depending on one's viewpoint. I don't agree.

A deity who invariably operates in a manner consistent with the observable natural universe becomes superfluous to any scientific explanation.

Take your example of the brick. I can drop that brick a million times and it will always fall in the same predictable way. To posit that a deity pushes down the brick each time or that a deity set up the relationship of gravitational attraction, mass, and distance adds nothing to our understanding.

We don’t know exactly what gravity is; there's plenty of room for inquiry in that area. An atheist is not open to the explanation that a deity pushes down bricks, so he has no option but to keep looking for a natural explanation. His theistic colleague, open to that very explanation, just might be a tad more likely to give up.

Your contention that atheists are unduly blinkered would be greatly strengthened if you could cite anything from the scientific literature where a supernatural explanation has panned out.

With all due respect, the thrust of your last comment seems to be that “natural” and “supernatural” can be considered synonymous terms, depending on one’s viewpoint. I don’t agree.

A deity who invariably operates in a manner consistent with the observable natural universe becomes superfluous to any scientific explanation.

Take your example of the brick. I can drop that brick a million times and it will always fall in the same predictable way. To posit that a deity pushes down the brick each time or that a deity set up the relationship of gravitational attraction, mass, and distance adds nothing to our understanding.

We don’t know exactly what gravity is; there’s plenty of room for inquiry in that area. An atheist is not open to the explanation that a deity pushes down bricks, so he has no option but to keep looking for a natural explanation. His theistic colleague, open to that very explanation, just might be a tad more likely to give up.

Your contention that atheists are unduly blinkered would be greatly strengthened if you could cite anything from the scientific literature where a supernatural explanation has panned out.

Flint,

The following seems to me to be the crux of our impasse. (By the way, how do you splice in those quote boxes from somebody else’s comment?)

“Arrgh! What I said was, an outside observer could not tell the difference between the atheist and theist scientists by observing their technique. To the theist, the deity is not superfluous, he is the essential warp and woof of what’s being investigated. But the METHOD of investigation is no different from that of the godless naturalist.”

That would mean that the only difference between the two scientists is that the theist adds an extra entity, the deity, to whatever explanation they come up with. Sure, the theist doesn’t consider the deity to be superfluous, but the fact that his explanation is otherwise identical to that of the atheist raises an Occam’s razor issue. Unless, of course, you figure that the atheist is substituting an entity for the deity in some way.

Flint said: Finally, we get to the problem: we haven't defined our terms to our mutual profit. Everything the theist scientist has ever learned, increases his understanding of how HIS view of the supernatural operates. Remember that to him, there is no natural phenomenon. The operation of his universe, in every possible detail, is the observable outcropping of the thoughts of his gods. I suspect the problem we're running into here is, you tend to view the gods as making themselves visible only through their introduction of exceptions and anomalies. This has been referred to as Finding God through His mistakes. I think this is an error. I think the robustness of some scientific assumptions (that reality is internally consistent, that effects have causes) tells the theist that the gods do not make errors. I confess I'd have more difficulty worshipping any other gods.

Sure, the theist doesn’t consider the deity to be superfluous, but the fact that his explanation is otherwise identical to that of the atheist raises an Occam’s razor issue.

My personal belief is that the natural universe is an expression of the divine will, but that the universe does not require the continuous activitiy of or intervention by any deity.

SWT said: I have no idea how typical my position is, but I know that it is not unique. I haven't met any working scientists who take the approach Flint described -- that doesn't mean that they don't exist, just that I don't know them.

Flint,

Thanks for taking the time to correspond with me on this topic. My hunch is that our disagreement on natural/supernatural equivalency leads to semantic problems that make us talk past each other somewhat. For what it’s worth, you’ve made me think harder, always a good thing.

During our exchange I’ve been addressing theistic science as you have described it, or at least as I have interpreted your description of it. I read nothing in SWT’s comment to indicate agreement with your description, so your following comment rankled a little.

“But maybe you are far more qualified than I to respond to Dean’s conjecture that your religous faith hobbles your scientific understanding. Or that you are multiplying entities unnecessarily.”

Occam's Razor is double sided. The deist says that the ultimate cause of the Universe, at least, is Something (and, yes, often goes further to aver that this ultimate cause operates at every level through the action of physical law, and makes various statements as to the supposed attributes of that cause). The atheist says that there is no ultimate cause, no Something. Both are hypotheses, confronting an unknown: we do not know if the Universe has an ultimate cause. We do know that events have proximate causes, and indirect causes, and causes far-removed, in a cascading hierarchy. We do know that causes and effects bootstrap each other; are mutually emergent. But ultimate? No knowledge.

Both hypotheses have one assumption (or two, if you want to be picky, the first being that we could ever know). Arguments over which is more likely can be indulged in, but are not conclusive, on two levels: one, we have no agreed means of assessing the probability of either; two, the best we might derive from this is a statement of probability based on admittedly incomplete data. We are left with deciding between hypotheses with equal numbers of assumptions. Occam's Razor is of no use to us.

We don't know.

Dave Luckett said: We are left with deciding between hypotheses with equal numbers of assumptions. Occam's Razor is of no use to us. We don't know.

I read nothing in SWT’s comment to indicate agreement with your description, so your following comment rankled a little.

We are left with deciding between hypotheses with equal numbers of assumptions. Occam’s Razor is of no use to us. We don’t know.

Flint,

You are right, I said that theists are burdened in the performance of good science. Actually, my first comment was quite a bit stronger than that. I just had a knee-jerk reaction to the use of the word "hobbles" on my behalf.

There's no question that having been an atheist pretty much my entire adult life hinders me in trying to understand the theistic mind.

Flint said: You are changing the subject on purely practical grounds! Shame on you. I think we all agree that trying to harness science to false foregone conclusions not to be questioned, is like nailing water to a tree. Why bother to investigate reality if you already know reality is wrong? Which is why few creationists bother with science, and those few pervert it beyond recognition?

Mike Elzinga said: At least we seem to know that belief or non-belief in deities doesn't necessarily have any correlation with the ability to do good science. Good scientists come from all sorts of religious and non-religious backgrounds.

Mike Elzinga said: At least we seem to know that belief or non-belief in deities doesn't necessarily have any correlation with the ability to do good science. Good scientists come from all sorts of religious and non-religious backgrounds. However, there does seem to be evidence that certain beliefs in deities actually stultify scientific ability as exemplified by the ID/creationists’ inability to do research.

eric said:

Mike Elzinga said: At least we seem to know that belief or non-belief in deities doesn't necessarily have any correlation with the ability to do good science. Good scientists come from all sorts of religious and non-religious backgrounds. However, there does seem to be evidence that certain beliefs in deities actually stultify scientific ability as exemplified by the ID/creationists’ inability to do research.

To me, that is the crux of the matter. Its incorrect to say religious belief in general compromises one's ability to do good science. Religious belief is too broad and too varied for that argument to have any real meaning. Even worse for the hardcore atheist, empirically it just doesn't seem to be true! Some religious beliefs do compromise one's ability to do good science. But the flip side of that observation is, some religious beliefs don't.

Mike Elzinga: At least we seem to know that belief or non-belief in deities doesn’t necessarily have any correlation with the ability to do good science. Good scientists come from all sorts of religious and non-religious backgrounds. However, there does seem to be evidence that certain beliefs in deities actually stultify scientific ability as exemplified by the ID/creationists’ inability to do research.

eric: To me, that is the crux of the matter. Its incorrect to say religious belief in general compromises one’s ability to do good science. Religious belief is too broad and too varied for that argument to have any real meaning. Even worse for the hardcore atheist, empirically it just doesn’t seem to be true! Some religious beliefs do compromise one’s ability to do good science. But the flip side of that observation is, some religious beliefs don’t.

Dean Wentworth said:

Mike Elzinga: At least we seem to know that belief or non-belief in deities doesn’t necessarily have any correlation with the ability to do good science. Good scientists come from all sorts of religious and non-religious backgrounds. However, there does seem to be evidence that certain beliefs in deities actually stultify scientific ability as exemplified by the ID/creationists’ inability to do research.

eric: To me, that is the crux of the matter. Its incorrect to say religious belief in general compromises one’s ability to do good science. Religious belief is too broad and too varied for that argument to have any real meaning. Even worse for the hardcore atheist, empirically it just doesn’t seem to be true! Some religious beliefs do compromise one’s ability to do good science. But the flip side of that observation is, some religious beliefs don’t.

So, depending on the individual, religious belief may or may not be a hindrance to one's ability to do good science. I can't argue with that.

SWT said:

Dean Wentworth said:

Mike Elzinga: At least we seem to know that belief or non-belief in deities doesn’t necessarily have any correlation with the ability to do good science. Good scientists come from all sorts of religious and non-religious backgrounds. However, there does seem to be evidence that certain beliefs in deities actually stultify scientific ability as exemplified by the ID/creationists’ inability to do research.

eric: To me, that is the crux of the matter. Its incorrect to say religious belief in general compromises one’s ability to do good science. Religious belief is too broad and too varied for that argument to have any real meaning. Even worse for the hardcore atheist, empirically it just doesn’t seem to be true! Some religious beliefs do compromise one’s ability to do good science. But the flip side of that observation is, some religious beliefs don’t.

So, depending on the individual, religious belief may or may not be a hindrance to one's ability to do good science. I can't argue with that.

Neither can I!