Let me try again ...

RBH: In its Faith Project, then, I think that NCSE has gone beyond its remit and past where it can be effective. I now think – in agreement with Coyne, PZ, and others – that it should back off from describing particular ways of reconciling science and religion. Pointing to religious people and organizations who have made their peace with science and evolution is appropriate, but going past that to describing particular ways of making that peace is a mistake. NCSE ought not wade into theological swamps.

We are an affiliate of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

So yeah, I was wrong to overstate my case. Sorry, folks. :)

— Richard B. Hoppe

Whew! Thank you, Mr. Hoppe - no one (at least not me or anyone I noticed) was demanding some retraction or apology, just a bit of clearing up of that "snarkiness".

There is plenty of room for accommodation of the very wide range of almost-entirely philosophical views of the facts and demonstrated theories of the sciences. And while one view or another may believe it "strategically important" for views less "popular" with what they see as the "general public", there is nothing to be gained by hinting or suggesting others bend to the suggested strategy, much less by belittling those working for the same shared goals.

But the tension is there and will be. It's not entirely a bad thing: it keeps our side honest while working against groups almost entirely made of utterly, bizarrely dishonest people (at least among the "leadership").

がんばって！

wait...

after more than 3 years of this argument back and forth...

progress???

fuck me sideways, never thought I'd see the day.

I'm really, truly, impressed. I'd even spout hosannas if i were of the religious persuasion.

Instead, I'll just say:

cheers!

Um ... I confess that I did say plainly that retractions and apologies were in order for one section of the first attempt. But this second revision sticks to the substance and that helps a lot. Thanks!

KP makes an obvious point in comment #1: "Those of us who are atheists can find plenty of opportunities outside the science forum to advocate atheism."

Quite so. Hence it's a distraction to be critical of individuals for speaking out on their own behalf on the inconsistency of science with religion, or to be critical of individuals for speaking out on their own behalf on how religion and science are mutually supportive. (I'm thinking of Miller and Myers here.) We can disagree, of course, and give robust criticism of such views on their own merits, should we choose. Or we can let it be; we cannot consistently be critical of them merely for speaking their mind plainly. They are not constrained by the tactical concerns of one political/social campaign.

The NCSE, however, is not an individual; so here it is entirely appropriate to look at its raison d'etre and make tactical considerations bear upon what should and should not be said, as an organization.

I think Richard just about nails it here.

The NCSE should not be in the business of identifying "good" religion, or defining how religion ought to operate. On the other hand, I am persuaded that the NSCE does need to address the matter of religion explicitly.

A policy of saying nothing on religion is IMO naive. Religion is much too much a part of the whole problem to be merely avoided. You avoid mention of religion when giving a lesson on science; but not when engaged with a public meeting where religion becomes directly involved.

It makes sense to point out that in one pragmatic sense, science is consistent with religion -- and that is, science doesn't care. There are plenty of scientists who in their own mind have a reached a personally satisfying reconciliation of their own faith with their work in science. That's their own business. Their work in science is judged no differently as a result. It is often useful to point out individual scientists who are Christian in particular, because in the USA, it is Christians who most often are attacking science, and need to be defused.

This is not because we want to advocate a position. And hence, there's no reason to "balance" it by pointing out scientists who are not religious! As I see it, the reason for this part of the arsenal of argument is simply to cut the ground out from under those objecting that teaching science is being anti-religious.

Cheers -- Chris Ho-Stuart

Mr. Hoppe writes:
"(...) it has an excellent counter to Jonathan Wells’ “Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution.” The responses are brief, to the point, and effective: I’ve used them."

You're probably not aware of Mr. Well's response to the falsehoods in NCSE's "answers". Read it for yourself: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/08/inherit_the_spin_the_ncse_answ.html

Good. I was hoping it wouldn't come to a Lenny Flank type situation with one party walking away.

I do find myself becoming less tolerant with religion in general and maybe that's the natural result of conflict on any level.

Nikahara Suzuki said: Mr. Hoppe writes: "(...) it has an excellent counter to Jonathan Wells’ “Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution.” The responses are brief, to the point, and effective: I’ve used them." You're probably not aware of Mr. Well's response to the falsehoods in NCSE's "answers". Read it for yourself: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/08/inherit_the_spin_the_ncse_answ.html

Nikahara Suzuki said: Mr. Hoppe writes: "(...) it has an excellent counter to Jonathan Wells’ “Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution.” The responses are brief, to the point, and effective: I’ve used them." You're probably not aware of Mr. Well's response to the falsehoods in NCSE's "answers". Read it for yourself: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/08/inherit_the_spin_the_ncse_answ.html

Most biology textbooks include the origin of life--and the Miller-Urey experiment--in their treatments of evolution. If the NCSE feels that the origin of life is really “not a question about evolution,” the organization should launch a campaign to correct biology textbooks.

Do these textbooks saying anything about survival of the fittest?

NCSE (and all of us) should stick to science advocacy when under the scientific “big tent.” When people ask “is evolution/science inherently atheistic?” in such venues, we are free to answer “No.” or better yet, “No, science is silent on the validity of religion.”

— KP

You’re probably not aware of Mr. Well’s response to the falsehoods in NCSE’s “answers”.

— Nikahara Suzuki

I can't agree that you can separate the roll of the NAS and AAAS in advocating science from the interaction of religion and evolution education. Like it or not, the latter is a political question and, as is the case with all our politics, religion has to be addressed, albeit delicately ... unless you want those organizations to cede the field to the likes of AiG and the Discovery Institute. Chris Ho-Stuart has it right, I think, as did the NAS booklet. Point out the creationists are wrong to say that science, particularly evolutionary theory, is an inherently atheistic position, using examples, and leave it at that. Contrary to one thing Coyne said, this is important for the court cases we have won recently. It is just as against the First Amendment to teach atheism is true in public schools as it is to teach Christianity is. If a court is convinced that evolution is, in fact, an atheist philosophy, it would necessary have to ban it from public school science classes and relegate it to comparative religion or civics classes. Statements from our leading scientific organizations to that effect are, therefore, most helpful on the legal front.

Dan Styer said: Richard Hoppe almost certainly is aware of this document, and aware of how pathetic it is. For example, the first sentence:

Most biology textbooks include the origin of life--and the Miller-Urey experiment--in their treatments of evolution. If the NCSE feels that the origin of life is really “not a question about evolution,” the organization should launch a campaign to correct biology textbooks.

Most biology textbooks also include a brief biography of Charles Darwin in their treatments of evolution. All agree that the biography of Charles Darwin is not a question about evolution. Does this mean that the inclusion is an error and that NCSE should launch a campaign to correct that error? This is so pathetic it doesn't deserve a response.

Frank J said: The simple "what did the designer do, when" questions are invariably evaded or dismissed with "it's not ID's task to connect dots." That's a huge problem for ID because even YEC has no problem connecting dots (the wrong way).

ID will never be science, but IDers could at least back up their empty "ID is not creationism" chant by occasionally refuting YEC claims.

Heavens! It's almost as if a group of rational and intelligent people are capable of having a vigorous debate on a controversial issue and changing their positions based on evidence and reason.

This is not what the Internet is for, people!

:)

Stephen Wells said: Heavens! It's almost as if a group of rational and intelligent people are capable of having a vigorous debate on a controversial issue and changing their positions based on evidence and reason. This is not what the Internet is for, people! :)

KP said: When people ask "is evolution/science inherently atheistic?" in such venues, we are free to answer "No." or better yet, "No, science is silent on the validity of religion." Those of us who are atheists can find plenty of opportunities outside the science forum to advocate atheism.

Nikahara wrote:

"You’re wrong. Darwin is the founder of the theory of evolution, therefore it’s ok to include his biography. I would expect Newton’s biography in an engin. mechanics textbook, however I wouldn’t expect quantum physics or polymer chemistry to be in the textbook."

Yes, most college textbooks do include a discussion of the Miller-Urey experiment. It is usually included in a chapter titled "The Origin of Life". That chapter may or may not be included in the section on evolution. It is a related topic to the topic of evolution, that's all.

What is your point here? The experiment is a very important one and demonstrates that life could have arisen spontaneously under the conditions of the primitive earth and that if it did one would expect it to look very much like it does today. What section of the book it is contained in has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of the theory of evolution or on the validity of the experiment or the conclusions drawn from it. If this is the best criticism you've got then you might as well throw in the towel right now.

Wells is sadly misinformed about most critical aspects of evolutionary theory. His reasoning is fundamentally flawed, he makes many factual errors and worst of all he refuses to correct his errors when he is proven to be wrong. I would not take anything he writes at all seriously. You would be much better served by going to the primary literature if you want to study evolution.

Noew if you are really interested in evolution, the Talk Origins archive has refutations of almost every creationist argument ever made, including those by the infamous Wells. I would advise you to increase your knowledge.

Intelligent Design proponents fully intend to connect the dots, once they have destroyed the educational system enough to enter, they will make it crystal clear whom the Intelligent Designer really is (re: God, as described in the Old and New Testaments in the King James’ Translation of the Holy Bible)

— Stanton

Okay, Richard - so I guess there's now no use in getting your response to my very long comment on PZ's thread that I wrote while you were writing this. :)

Thanks for being prepared to reconsider.

Is discussion of NOMA really a mistake? Given that Christian thinkers have been dealing with it since Augustine, if not since Jesus himself, it seems fair to mention it as one well-known means of doing what NCSE says it's possible to do.

Quite frankly, I suspect that NOMA is just plain inevitable, if only because theists will use it to keep their non-materialistic ideas safe from rational inquiry. Either we accept some form of NOMA, with or without the name, or we tell theists they have to become atheists, which they will never do. Seriously, what other alternative is there?

NCSE ought not wade into theological swamps.

What choice do they -- or we -- have, when the theocrats and theotards are doing everything they can to turn every possible subject of ratinal inquiry into a "theological swamp?"

You can't clean up a swamp without wading into it.

Either we accept some form of NOMA, with or without the name, or we tell theists they have to become atheists, which they will never do. Seriously, what other alternative is there?

— Raging Bee

Raging Bee said: Quite frankly, I suspect that NOMA is just plain inevitable, if only because theists will use it to keep their non-materialistic ideas safe from rational inquiry. Either we accept some form of NOMA, with or without the name, or we tell theists they have to become atheists, which they will never do. Seriously, what other alternative is there?

I would've liked to have seen more language regarding that science is a secular and deals with secular issues
like KP said above:
"science is silent on the validity of religion.”
just like - "residential plumbing design is silent on the validity of religion" or "algebra is silent on the validity of religion" or "the law is silent of the validity of religion"

I realise that some will make the accusation that 'secular' is code for 'atheist' (which anyone with access to a dictionary can dismiss) however in constitutional circles this statement re-affirms that science is not in the 'church' side in the separation of church and state - also such a statement (which many may feel is self -evident, but alas some teachers do not) might help in court when someone decides to preach in class-

The alternative is to accept that some scientific conclusions conflict with some religious claims, generally when those religious claims say something about the empirical world.

Yes, we all acept that here, and I'm not advising against it. But when this conflict -- between the material-fact-claims of science and those of one's religion -- comes to light, as it already has and inevitably will, that's where some form of NOMA will have to come in: whatever your religion states, and however you wish to interpret it, must be kept separate from the practice of scientific inquiry.

I see the issue with creationism to be more one about teaching good science. As long as that happens, I could really care less if and how someone resolves the contradictions they may have within their own set of beliefs.

There you go: another incarnation of NOMA -- religious belief is okay as long as it's kept separate from honest science and science education.

In its Faith Project, then, I think that NCSE has gone beyond its remit and past where it can be effective. I now think – in agreement with Coyne, PZ, and others – that it should back off from describing particular ways of reconciling science and religion. Pointing to religious people and organizations who have made their peace with science and evolution is appropriate, but going past that to describing particular ways of making that peace is a mistake. NCSE ought not wade into theological swamps. So yeah, I was wrong to overstate my case. Sorry, folks. :)

I seem to be the only one who's still annoyed.

The reason is simple.

The NCSE has the right to allude to the fact that some religions don't have a problem with evolution.

It's not pandering to do so.

You know what? I'm as opposed to the NCSE pandering to religion as anyone else.

I despise the constant, daily, implicitly discriminatory pandering to some religions that goes on in US society.

And the instant that the NCSE actually panders to religion, I'll condemn it.

But what Coyne and Meyers originally complained about was the NCSE making neutral, factual statements about science and religion.

That isn't pandering.

Refusing to factually state that a certain religion has no problem with evolution, in order to prevent opponents of that religion from being annoyed, is pandering.

If the pope calls the NCSE and asks them to state only that the Catholic church has no problem with evolution, but to take down references to Jewish and Protestant denominations, because he doesn't want "positive" information about those who don't share his exact views to be presented, and the NCSE complies, THAT'S PANDERING.

And it's pandering if the same thing is done at the demand of someone other than the pope, too.

harold said:

In its Faith Project, then, I think that NCSE has gone beyond its remit and past where it can be effective. I now think – in agreement with Coyne, PZ, and others – that it should back off from describing particular ways of reconciling science and religion. Pointing to religious people and organizations who have made their peace with science and evolution is appropriate, but going past that to describing particular ways of making that peace is a mistake. NCSE ought not wade into theological swamps. So yeah, I was wrong to overstate my case. Sorry, folks. :)

You're absolutely wrong. The NCSE exists to promote science education. That's why it's called the National Center for Science Education. A very common creationist tactic, used solely for the objective of disrupting science education at the public or individual level, is to falsely state that the theory of evolution is 100% associated with atheism. A very straightforward way to address this tactic is to have a set of data available that refutes it, and refer briefly to that data set whenever this tactic is employed by a creationist. To insist that the NCSE not do this is to insist that the NCSE indulge in hamstringing self-censorship. In short, what Meyers, Coyne, and now you demand, is that the NCSE pander to atheists, in a ludicrous way. You all literally want the NCSE to self-censor itself from alluding to data that refutes a common creationist claim, solely because some atheists emotionally interpret that neutral refutation as saying something vaguely "positive" about somebody else's religion, and are too insecure to handle that. I'm not religious, but I hate all all authoritarian attacks on human dignity. Yes, people often assume that I'm gay because I'm not homophobic, that I'm a member of a "visible minority" because I hate racism, or that I'm religious because I hate unreasonable discrimination on the basis of someone's presumed private religious beliefs. Most ironically, I'm none of those things, I'm just a guy who respects the rights of others. I understand that atheism is not being imposed by authority in the US, but it has been in other places, and that effort is being vigorously made in the little corner of US society where Coyne and his ilk hold some sway. It's none of your designer-damned business what other people feel privately, your views don't deserve to be pandered to any more than anyone else's views, and it's grossly unreasonable to ask the NCSE to hamstring itself in order to pander to insecure atheists.

John Kwok, I am getting quite annoyed with your continued harping on the "cracker incident". PZ's actions were very comparable to civil disobedience against war or bigotry. The Catholic Church was very irresponsible to use its powerful propaganda machine to tell people that magic is real and priests can literally turn wafers into the body of Christ. Hatred and death threats were the direct result of that policy. So, by all means, publicize it. Stomp on the wafers, and show how ridiculous it is. I drank Welch's grape juice in communion, so is it sacred,,, NO!

Nikahara Suzuki said:

Dan Styer said: Richard Hoppe almost certainly is aware of this document, and aware of how pathetic it is. For example, the first sentence:

Most biology textbooks include the origin of life--and the Miller-Urey experiment--in their treatments of evolution. If the NCSE feels that the origin of life is really “not a question about evolution,” the organization should launch a campaign to correct biology textbooks.

Most biology textbooks also include a brief biography of Charles Darwin in their treatments of evolution. All agree that the biography of Charles Darwin is not a question about evolution. Does this mean that the inclusion is an error and that NCSE should launch a campaign to correct that error? This is so pathetic it doesn't deserve a response.

You're wrong. Darwin is the founder of the theory of evolution, therefore it's ok to include his biography. I would expect Newton's biography in an engin. mechanics textbook, however I wouldn't expect quantum physics or polymer chemistry to be in the textbook.

jasonmitchell said: hear hear! I think the NCSE hasn't gone far enough! - although the Faith project offers evidence that religion and science do not necessarily conflict- and some people of faith accept the facts of evolution - I don't see enough explaination of WHY that is. It's because science is a secular persuit (sic) and 'secular' is not the same as 'athiest' 'god free' is not the same as 'godless' !

Frank B said: John Kwok, I am getting quite annoyed with your continued harping on the "cracker incident". PZ's actions were very comparable to civil disobedience against war or bigotry. The Catholic Church was very irresponsible to use its powerful propaganda machine to tell people that magic is real and priests can literally turn wafers into the body of Christ. Hatred and death threats were the direct result of that policy. So, by all means, publicize it. Stomp on the wafers, and show how ridiculous it is. I drank Welch's grape juice in communion, so is it sacred,,, NO!

harold said: A very common creationist tactic, used solely for the objective of disrupting science education at the public or individual level, is to falsely state that the theory of evolution is 100% associated with atheism. A very straightforward way to address this tactic is to have a set of data available that refutes it, and refer briefly to that data set whenever this tactic is employed by a creationist. To insist that the NCSE not do this is to insist that the NCSE indulge in hamstringing self-censorship.

And NCSE completely appropriately provides information to “parents and concerned citizens” about that issue. It completely appropriately points out that there are believers – self identified Christians – who accept that evolution has occurred (it’s a fact) and that the modern theory of evolution is the best available naturalistic explanation of that fact. Moreover, NCSE completely appropriately points to religious organizations that have stated that they accept that.

harold continues: In short, what Meyers, Coyne, and now you demand, is that the NCSE pander to atheists, in a ludicrous way. You all literally want the NCSE to self-censor itself from alluding to data that refutes a common creationist claim, solely because some atheists emotionally interpret that neutral refutation as saying something vaguely "positive" about somebody else's religion, and are too insecure to handle that.

harold ends with: I'm not religious, but I hate all all authoritarian attacks on human dignity. Yes, people often assume that I'm gay because I'm not homophobic, that I'm a member of a "visible minority" because I hate racism, or that I'm religious because I hate unreasonable discrimination on the basis of someone's presumed private religious beliefs. Most ironically, I'm none of those things, I'm just a guy who respects the rights of others. I understand that atheism is not being imposed by authority in the US, but it has been in other places, and that effort is being vigorously made in the little corner of US society where Coyne and his ilk hold some sway. It's none of your designer-damned business what other people feel privately, your views don't deserve to be pandered to any more than anyone else's views, and it's grossly unreasonable to ask the NCSE to hamstring itself in order to pander to insecure atheists.

The only possible way to make America scientifically literate is by first eradicating religious insanity. All religious beliefs are insane and all religious beliefs get in the way of understanding scientific concepts.

The denial of evolution is just a symptom of a disease. The disease is religion. Trying to cure a symptom of a disease while ignoring the disease doesn't work.

It's better to be honest with Christians. I tell them if they are ever going to accept evolution, they first need to grow up and throw out their childish idiotic Christian death cult.

Telling Christians they can accept modern biology and still believe in their Bible is just plain lying and the Christians know it's lying. That's why this dishonest strategy has never worked and it never will work.

That’s why this dishonest strategy has never worked and it never will work.

The fact that so many persons of faith have proven so crucial in winning so many important victories for honest science and religious freedom, proves it does work, and you have no idea what you're talking about.

Lists of religious scientists and religious organizations who formally accept evolution are neutral. Endorsing a reconciliation method is notably not neutral.

Advocating that a purportedly religiously neutral organization stay religiously neutral, in light of its exclusion of a certain viewpoint, is not the same thing as advocating for that viewpoint’s totality.

The Catholic Church was very irresponsible to use its powerful propaganda machine to tell people that magic is real and priests can literally turn wafers into the body of Christ.

— Frank B

Nothing wrong with pointing out the compatibility of the science of evolution with religion, and nothing very new about it either. We're now close to the 150th anniversary of Asa Gray writing a series of reviews arguing that Darwin's theory of natural selection can be accepted by natural theology and religious belief. Darwin was particularly pleased with one of these reviews, and arranged for it to be republished in England as a pamphlet...

http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/content/view/81/66/

And when it came to it, he was careful to avoid endorsing the arguments of atheists. Try looking up the chat he had with Aveling and Büchner. Clever guy, Darwin.

John Harshman said:

KP said: When people ask "is evolution/science inherently atheistic?" in such venues, we are free to answer "No." or better yet, "No, science is silent on the validity of religion." Those of us who are atheists can find plenty of opportunities outside the science forum to advocate atheism.

We are of course free to do anything we like, but I think the second answer is wrong. The correct answer is "It depends." Science is silent on the validity of some religions (the ones that don't conflict with science), but increasingly noisy on the validity of others. YEC biblical literalism, for example, is indeed a religion, and it's right out. Still, for a short answer, "no" is appropriate, even if it needs an asterisk.

harold said: Guyfauxe -

Lists of religious scientists and religious organizations who formally accept evolution are neutral. Endorsing a reconciliation method is notably not neutral.

You've blatantly mischaracterized the NSCE as "endorsing a reconciliation method". Which it doesn't.

Advocating that a purportedly religiously neutral organization stay religiously neutral, in light of its exclusion of a certain viewpoint, is not the same thing as advocating for that viewpoint’s totality.

And I obviously do advocate that that the NCSE stay religiously neutral. The neutral fact is that many religions have no problem with evolution, and many scientists are religious. It's neutral to acknowledge that - fully and completely - and move on.

Congratulations and thanks to RBH for openness of mind, flexibility of thought, and honesty in self-correction.

I haven't followed all the various blog postings about this debate (PZ Myers provides a listing here), but sfaik the NCSE itself has yet to comment.

We can only hope they will follow Hoppe's logic about religious neutrality; my next question is whether NCSE will agree that "it is not a science advocacy group as such".

And, is Panda's Thumb a science advocacy group as such?

You’ve blatantly mischaracterized the NSCE as “endorsing a reconciliation method”. Which it doesn’t.

"Creation" and "evolution" do not occupy competing categories, but are complementary ways of looking at the universe.

Neither you nor PZ Myers, or any of your fellow militant atheists, have had the decades-long experience that Eugenie Scott and her NCSE colleagues have had in countless successful efforts at science advocacy both within the courts and legislatures of the United States. One of the reasons why NCSE has succeeded is by adopting the very philosophy which is the unofficial “official” policy of the American Museum of Natural History; by reminding its visitors that it is not in the business of changing their religious views, but instead, it is interested only in teaching them the principles and facts of valid mainstream science like evolutionary biology. One of the reasons why NCSE may be succeeding is by refusing to attack religious faith, and by seeking instead, some kind of accommodation with those religious faiths that recognize evolutionary biology as sound mainstream science.

Can I both accept what science teaches and engage in religious belief and practice? This is a complex issue, but theologians, clergy, and members of many religious traditions have concluded that the answer is, unequivocally, yes.

Can I both accept what science teaches and engage in religious belief and practice? This is a complex issue and the best we can say is, "maybe"? There are some theologians, clergy, and members of many religious traditions who have concluded that the answer is, unequivocally, yes. On the other hand there are some theologians and clergy who declare that the answer is unequivocally, no. It depends very much on what kind of religion you are practicing. There are many philosophers who argue that certain kinds of religious belief are perfectly compatible with science while there are others who argue, with equal passion, that science and religion are incompatible. You will have to make up your own mind whether the facts of science conflict with your religious beliefs or not. The goal of NCSE is to make sure that students understand science correctly and we oppose all those who would teach incorrect science.

harold said: Guyfauxe - You've blatantly mischaracterized the NSCE as "endorsing a reconciliation method". Which it doesn't. You’re absolutely wrong. The NCSE exists to promote science education. That’s why it’s called the National Center for Science Education. A very common creationist tactic, used solely for the objective of disrupting science education at the public or individual level, is to falsely state that the theory of evolution is 100% associated with atheism. A very straightforward way to address this tactic is to have a set of data available that refutes it, and refer briefly to that data set whenever this tactic is employed by a creationist.

In terms of winning hearts and minds it isn’t at all clear that NCSE has a right to declare victory. The good guys are barely holding their own and in many ways we are losing. It isn’t helpful to pretend that winning a few court cases is equivalent to convincing people to abandon creationism. In fact, it’s downright harmful to promote such an illusion.

Nikahara Suzuki said: Mr. Hoppe writes: "(...) it has an excellent counter to Jonathan Wells’ “Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution.” The responses are brief, to the point, and effective: I’ve used them." You're probably not aware of Mr. Well's response to the falsehoods in NCSE's "answers". Read it for yourself: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/08/inherit_the_spin_the_ncse_answ.html

Moderation note

I repeat: Comments regarding John Kwok's banning from Pharyngula will go to the Bathroom Wall just as soon as the Movable Type permissions necessary for me to do that are sorted out.

RBH

Larry Moran said: Richard, I'm glad we can agree about AAAS and NAS. As science organizations they should not be in the business of making recommendations about religion. With respect to NCSE, the situation is more complicated than you think. You quote the following NCSE statement approvingly ...

Can I both accept what science teaches and engage in religious belief and practice? This is a complex issue, but theologians, clergy, and members of many religious traditions have concluded that the answer is, unequivocally, yes.

I don't think that's an accurate statement. Here's the accurate statement ..

Can I both accept what science teaches and engage in religious belief and practice? This is a complex issue and the best we can say is, "maybe"? There are some theologians, clergy, and members of many religious traditions who have concluded that the answer is, unequivocally, yes. On the other hand there are some theologians and clergy who declare that the answer is unequivocally, no. It depends very much on what kind of religion you are practicing. There are many philosophers who argue that certain kinds of religious belief are perfectly compatible with science while there are others who argue, with equal passion, that science and religion are incompatible. You will have to make up your own mind whether the facts of science conflict with your religious beliefs or not. The goal of NCSE is to make sure that students understand science correctly and we oppose all those who would teach incorrect science.

Call me old-fashioned, but I think that truth is always preferable to the alternative. If you "frame" the response in a way that disguises the truth then I think that's wrong.

Richard:

Kudos to you for modifying your take on Coyne's article. I think your analysis is sound. Now, what is the best way for NCSE supporters (including yours truly, a theist) to make the argument that perhaps the Faith Project has tipped the scales too closely to advocacy?

GuyeFaux said: Thanks for the response.

harold said: Guyfauxe -

Lists of religious scientists and religious organizations who formally accept evolution are neutral. Endorsing a reconciliation method is notably not neutral.

You've blatantly mischaracterized the NSCE as "endorsing a reconciliation method". Which it doesn't.

What about this? Do you think that 1) it's not an endorsment, and/or 2) it's not a theological position which runs counter to other theological positions?

Evolution makes no claims about God's existence or non-existence, any more than do other scientific theories such as gravitation, atomic structure, or plate tectonics. Just like gravity, the theory of evolution is compatible with theism, atheism, and agnosticism. Can I accept evolution as the most compelling explanation for biological diversity, and yet also accept the idea that God works through evolution? Certainly.

John Kwok said: I beg to differ here, RBH. You should keep mine and other comments in this thread, merely because they are illustrative of PZ Myers's "flame throwing" tactics against supposed allies like NCSE and enemies like creationists:

The difference is between saying:

You can reconcile religion with science. Here is how it works. [...]

...or...

Many scientists have reconciled their religious beliefs with science. Here are some examples. [...]

I seem to be the only one who’s still annoyed

Peter Henderson said: As for evolution Sunday and the clergy letter project, these are a complete farce in light of what has been written here over the last few days. I wouldn't expect any churches to touch them with a barge pole next year. i certainly wouldn't bother if my church were to participate (and I'm definitely not a YEC).

James F said:

Peter Henderson said: As for evolution Sunday and the clergy letter project, these are a complete farce in light of what has been written here over the last few days. I wouldn't expect any churches to touch them with a barge pole next year. i certainly wouldn't bother if my church were to participate (and I'm definitely not a YEC).

Peter, What does the Clergy Letter Project have to do with this discussion? It's a separate organization explicitly devoted to promoting acceptance of evolution by Christians and Jews. There are over 12,000 signatories, over 600 scientific consultants, and for Darwin's birthday there were over 1,000 participating congregations. Of particular note in light of this discussion, the CLP teamed up with the Center for Inquiry to launch the web site "Teach Them Science," an excellent example of religious and non-religious organizations working together for a common cause. Hardly a farce, it stands on its own for its stated mission. Plus, the YEC groups hate, hate, hate the Clergy Letter Project.

Peter Henderson said:

James F said:

Peter Henderson said: As for evolution Sunday and the clergy letter project, these are a complete farce in light of what has been written here over the last few days. I wouldn't expect any churches to touch them with a barge pole next year. i certainly wouldn't bother if my church were to participate (and I'm definitely not a YEC).

Peter, What does the Clergy Letter Project have to do with this discussion? It's a separate organization explicitly devoted to promoting acceptance of evolution by Christians and Jews. There are over 12,000 signatories, over 600 scientific consultants, and for Darwin's birthday there were over 1,000 participating congregations. Of particular note in light of this discussion, the CLP teamed up with the Center for Inquiry to launch the web site "Teach Them Science," an excellent example of religious and non-religious organizations working together for a common cause. Hardly a farce, it stands on its own for its stated mission. Plus, the YEC groups hate, hate, hate the Clergy Letter Project. James:. The clergy letter project (well as I see it anyway) is an attempt to show that you can be a Christian and yet accept evolutionary (mainstream) science. What Professor's Coyne and Meyers are saying (or have said) is that evolution and Christianity (and that's any type of Christianity, not just fundamentalism) are incompatible. This makes the job of Christians who are opposed to YECism just impossible. The YECs will claim "see we told you so. Evolution is incompatible with the Christian faith. Even the atheists know this". Sure, the YECs hate the clergy letter project along with evolution Sunday (which I think the NCSE back) but these comments over the last few days just makes the effectiveness of both impossible. Certainly I can't any evidence of non-religious scientists (e.g. Profs Meyers and Coyne)wanting an accommodation with those of faith in a common cause.

What Professor's Coyne and Meyers are saying (or have said) is that evolution and Christianity (and that's any type of Christianity, not just fundamentalism). This makes the job of Christians who are opposed to YECism just impossible. The YECs will claim "see we told you so. Evolution is incompatible with the Christian faith. Even the atheists know this".

Chris Ho-Stuart said: Creationists can truthfully make a strong case that the teaching of science commonly leads to loss of religious faith. In this, they are quite simply correct. Tactically speaking, you don't want to depend upon saying they are wrong. If a debate ends up turning on this particular point, you'll lose.

This is where I get the impression that you want these individuals to be silent about their religious and irreligious beliefs. In effect, you’re telling them to be silent about their views, because those views are inconvenient

if you are willing to give up the fight because of what PZ and other atheists have said, then I have less admiration and more pity for religious belief in the 21st century.

Peter Henderson said: No, I'm not saying the freedom of speech should be limited about one's religious views Chris. However, as I have said so often, this is not a debate about whether or not God exists. [...]

Those are philosophical issues, not religious ones. While I greatly admire Profs Coyne and Meyers as scientists they are fighting the wrong fight at the moment, in my opinion and thus creating a distraction from the main issues.

You can be absolutely sure the YECs will play on this one, of that I have no doubt.

if you are willing to give up the fight because of what PZ and other atheists have said, then I have less admiration and more pity for religious belief in the 21st century.

What dismays me is, as I have said, that because of what has happened over the last few days on this discussion forum and elsewhere, that the YECs task has become a whole lot easier. No wonder people in churches are flocking to hear Ham. As someone once said to me, most Christians would rather choke on Ham than vomit on Dawkins. That is why there is so little opposition to YECism in the churches and why groups such as the Evangelical Alliance 9here in the UK) are sitting on the fence.

Justin Thacker, head of theology, Evangelical Alliance, UK Let’s not give up, let’s fight the good fight. Let’s talk about a creator God and creation till we’re blue in the face. Indeed, let’s even call ourselves “creationists”. But let’s do it while at the same time accepting where the scientific evidence leads, which at present certainly means an old earth, and probably some form of evolution. Sometimes ‘both-and’ really is possible. This is one of those times.

Certainly I can’t any evidence of non-religious scientists (e.g. Profs Meyers and Coyne)wanting an accommodation with those of faith in a common cause.

GuyeFaux said:

jasonmitchell said: hear hear! I think the NCSE hasn't gone far enough! - although the Faith project offers evidence that religion and science do not necessarily conflict- and some people of faith accept the facts of evolution - I don't see enough explaination of WHY that is. It's because science is a secular persuit (sic) and 'secular' is not the same as 'athiest' 'god free' is not the same as 'godless' !

Genuinely curious, what do you think the difference is? And please, no straw-men of what atheists believe. Hess's essays, endorsed by the NCSE, is light apologetics. It stakes out a pretty clear philosophical position which is opposed by many others, including atheism. Though it does answer your question of "WHY that is." Out of many opposing theological arguments to reconcile evolution with faith, atheism being one such an argument, the NCSE chose the one which it decided was the most palatable to its target audience. As such, it waded foolishly into theology. More appropriate, non-committal answers exist that don't pander to any one philosophy. Hell, I wouldn't be offended if the NCSE listed a catalog of reconciliation methods, and simply stayed the hell out of apologetics.

I find the plea to leave the poor atheists alone and let them express their ideas to be a pathetic framing of the issues. Like every minority group seeking the right to be wrong (including Creationists, by the way), they produce this pitiful whine that their oppression will bring about the end of the world.

Just how exactly does one suppress an atheist? By imposing fines on them? By removing them from public office? By shutting down their favorite media? By threat of force?

As you can see, the instruments are so plentiful, it is no wonder that PZ and his followers are quaking in their boots. Except, I don't recall any instance of these instruments being used or threatened to be used by pro-science/pro-evolution people. So is there some organic, irrational paranoia spreading amongst the atheists, or were they all just born that way?

But here's the hypocrisy of it all [and PZ should tell you, hypocrisy really tics him off]: atheists want exactly the same thing. They want a certain group to STFU. And they employ the same mechanisms that they dread. They sue, they ban, they swarm BOE meetings, and they cheer the lost campaigns of their opponents. Only if atheists are brave enough [or smart enough] to be in the same positions held by the Creationists, right?

No, surely there must be more to this plea to be allowed to eat more crackers and crash some more internet polls and to act generally like giant 13 year olds dominating the Internet sandbox. Surely, theirs are the more enlightened mechanisms for inducing silence amongst the opposition. "High profile mockery" as one of PZ's defendants used. They've found the jackpot. Except, it was the only pot left for them to take. And there they've built an echo chamber to reassure them that it is all working. Yes, high profile mockery is the key to taking down religious intolerances.

The statement that "evolution is not incompatible with religion" is too broad to be meaningful; if you're using it to sooth some individual's ruffled feathers then you're implying that evolution is not incompatible with _their_ religion, which may not be true, and you're giving the impression that the compatibility or otherwise of evolution and religion is actually an issue with which science should concern itself, which it isn't.

Stephen Wells said: The statement that "evolution is not incompatible with religion" is too broad to be meaningful; if you're using it to sooth some individual's ruffled feathers then you're implying that evolution is not incompatible with _their_ religion, which may not be true, and you're giving the impression that the compatibility or otherwise of evolution and religion is actually an issue with which science should concern itself, which it isn't.

Dave Luckett said:

Stephen Wells said: The statement that "evolution is not incompatible with religion" is too broad to be meaningful; if you're using it to sooth some individual's ruffled feathers then you're implying that evolution is not incompatible with _their_ religion, which may not be true, and you're giving the impression that the compatibility or otherwise of evolution and religion is actually an issue with which science should concern itself, which it isn't.

I agree. Something more precise is required. "Evolution is not incompatible with the beliefs of most Christians, Jews, Muslims and those of other religions. One may accept evolution and still believe in a Creator God. The scientific evidence is, however, incompatible with a literal reading of Genesis." The above is only a suggestion, of course.

Because, Frank, a flat assertion of "incompatibility," directed explicitly against one holy text, factually correct though it may be, would simply alienate many followers of that text, muddy a clear and nondiscriminatory stick-to-the-science message, and diminish the credibility of a message that's supposed to be meaningful to people of all faiths. Yes, it's true, and yes, it does indeed need to be said; but not necessarily by an organization like the NCSE.

What the NCSE could say, maybe, is something like: "For many years, people believed certain things about the physical world, and those beliefs were taken for granted as "common knowledge" and got written into ancient holy texts, and no one had the means to prove them wrong until quite recently. Because of this, new findings that seemed to contradict the holy texts were sometimes attacked, discounted, rejected and ignored; and those who attempted to publish them were often punished or persecuted for apparently working to undermine the religious beliefs of their time. But while one generation initially rejected and/or silenced new findings, later generations came to accept them and accomodate their beliefs the new knowledge. Many persons of faith today acknowledge that modern humans have learned things about the physical world that previous generations could not have known; and have accepted and made use of the new knowledge while retaining much the same religious beliefs that have come from those times."

A bit clunky, to be sure, but at least factual without singling out any one religion.

A bit clunky, to be sure, but at least factual without singling out any one religion.

Raging Bee said: What the NCSE could say, maybe, is something like: "For many years, people believed certain things about the physical world, and those beliefs were taken for granted as "common knowledge" ...

Chris Ho-Stuart said: Creationists can truthfully make a strong case that the teaching of science commonly leads to loss of religious faith. In this, they are quite simply correct. Tactically speaking, you don't want to depend upon saying they are wrong. If a debate ends up turning on this particular point, you'll lose.

I agree, but again, there's that bloody inconvenient question of tact. "To the degree that a religious faith cannot tolerate factual refutation" really sounds like a harshly-worded, impatient blanket value-judgement of someone's religion; and it implies it's the ENTIRE FAITH that "cannot tolerate factual refutation;" which organizations like the NCSE probably would not want to be seen making, at least not as blatantly or explicitly as that. Better to acknowledge specific points of conflict in history (with examples including round Earth, heliocentrism, germ theory, evolution, etc.), then reiterate that pioneers like Gailieo and Darwin weren't actually questioning the religious doctrines themselves, and let the listeners do their own thinking about the strengths or weaknesses of their own present-day beliefs.

“ … but with the development of science, [and the vast amounts of new and unexpected knowledge it has brought us,] most of our earlier ideas about religion and human history are certainly being modified [in lively and often very contentious ongoing debates in which many people resist ideas they find troubling or dangerous]. Some people find this threatening, but others find it an exhilarating journey of exploration worth a lifetime of effort and contemplation”

The last sentence is a bit syrupy; not sure how to reword it yet.

Despite the apparent conflict going on among participants in these discussions, there does seem to be some trend toward better worded pronouncements by NCSE and the major scientific organizations.

Since the topic is large enough for an entire lesson in its own right, would it not be appropriate for these organizations to have a prominent link to a page discussing these issues? If so, they should enlist the help of historians of science and any other scholars who know the detailed history to work out the material that is presented there.

That in itself would be an implicit acknowledgement that scientists understand how they are embedded in history.

Raging Bee said: The last sentence is a bit syrupy; not sure how to reword it yet.

Because, Frank, a flat assertion of “incompatibility,” directed explicitly against one holy text, factually correct though it may be, would simply alienate many followers of that text, muddy a clear and nondiscriminatory stick-to-the-science message, and diminish the credibility of a message that’s supposed to be meaningful to people of all faiths. Yes, it’s true, and yes, it does indeed need to be said; but not necessarily by an organization like the NCSE.

— Raging Bee

Mike said:

Chris Ho-Stuart said: Creationists can truthfully make a strong case that the teaching of science commonly leads to loss of religious faith. In this, they are quite simply correct. Tactically speaking, you don't want to depend upon saying they are wrong. If a debate ends up turning on this particular point, you'll lose.

No, that is incorrect, but passed around the new atheist echo chamber as though they read a study on it just yesterday. For the majority, religious faith doesn't contradict anything taught in the biology classroom, so loss of religious faith due to science education is rare. For the minority of self-proclaimed fundamentalists, even here a loss of religious faith due to science education is not "common". There is no tactical advantage to anyone other than extreme militant atheists to agree with fundamentalists about this. It is for this reason, that the myth that biology education is fundamentally antithetical to a religious upbringing is repeated so often by both extremes in the popular conflict over biology education, that science and education advocacy groups MUST speak up in order to inject some rational facts into the popular debate. NCSE, AND NAS and AAAS, need to post more information on the interaction of religion and science, not less. In so far as possible, anyone who is truly concerned about the state of science education in the US, and not just using it as part of a larger cultural conflict, needs to help provide information about all the diverse ways that theologians and religious leaders struggle with apparent conflicts between science and religious teachings. Organizations concerned about science education must do this because there is no one else is going to. Theologians and religious organizations that do not have fundamental conflicts with science have no incentive to have education programs countering extreme fundamentalists. Its a miracle that the Clergy Letter Project exists at all, and probably won't if not for the involvement of scientist congregants and clergy science educators. This recent debate isn't over personal campaigns promoting atheism. Its about lobbying professional organizations concerned about science education. Myers, Coyne, et al. clearly state that the reason they are objecting to the pamphlets and Faith Project is that it interferes with their campaign against religious belief. (Yes, they have written it and posted it. If they want to revise that's fine, but calling people morons for pointing out what they've clearly already stated, and not retracted, is clearly juvenile.) The new atheist scientists are in the minority within the scientific community, and certainly within the education community. However, they are also the scientists and educators with the most incentive to speak up and lobby. Most scientists and educators treat this subject like a third rail, and rightfully so. Its important that everyone who realizes that the state of science education is in a crisis that can not be handled solely by the courts, and for whom science education is more important than promoting atheism, speak up and encourage, and thank, science education advocates. Now is not the time to be telling them to "back off".

But it is the responsibility of critics of creationism/ID to “somewhere, somehow” call attention to the mutual contradictions within creationism/ID, and the tactics of anti-evolution activists to cover them up.

I totally agree -- but that's not the same thing as the flat generalization that science is "incompatible" with one particular religion, such as Christianity, as a whole. Not all Christians are creationists, and not all Christian doctrine has anything to do with any of the specific lies we need to debunk.

Frank J said: I repeat the question to the group: Why are we helping the anti-evolution activists prop up their big tent, when we ought to be tearing it down?

Mike Elzinga said: Predators like FL, Sal, and Ray only smell blood, confusion and uncertainty. That is the trigger of their predatory instincts. It has nothing to do with what is actually going on here.

RBH said:

Mike Elzinga said: Predators like FL, Sal, and Ray only smell blood, confusion and uncertainty. That is the trigger of their predatory instincts. It has nothing to do with what is actually going on here.

"Predators" is the wrong word. The correct term is "scavengers."

Correction noted. Back to our muttons.

My own take on RB's suggestion, viz:

“For many years, people believed certain things about the physical world, and those beliefs were taken for granted as “common knowledge” and got written into ancient holy texts, and no one had the means to prove them wrong until quite recently. Because of this, new findings that seemed to contradict the holy texts were sometimes attacked, discounted, rejected and ignored; and those who attempted to publish them were often punished or persecuted for apparently working to undermine the religious beliefs of their time. But while one generation initially rejected and/or silenced new findings, later generations came to accept them and accomodate their beliefs the new knowledge. Many persons of faith today acknowledge that modern humans have learned things about the physical world that previous generations could not have known; and have accepted and made use of the new knowledge while retaining much the same religious beliefs that have come from those times.”

is that it's too long and too elliptical to be effective. It's factual, of course. But consider your audience, which means, consider its actual level of interest in history.

"The evidence from science is against any idea that the Universe, Earth and life were created in a brief time in their present form."

would, perhaps, accommodate Frank J's observation that there are several different readings in Genesis alone, without singling out Genesis specifically, which as RB points out, is undesirable.

“To the degree that a religious faith cannot tolerate factual refutation” really sounds like a harshly-worded, impatient blanket value-judgement of someone’s religion; and it implies it’s the ENTIRE FAITH that “cannot tolerate factual refutation;”

PZ Myers said:

Certainly I can’t any evidence of non-religious scientists (e.g. Profs Meyers and Coyne)wanting an accommodation with those of faith in a common cause.

You mistake accommodation for surrender, and then are irate that we won't sit quietly about our beliefs about religion. That's not the way it is going to work. You are wrong on every point. I do work with theists, and there's no problem on either side. They think I'm going to hell, and I think their superstitions are an affliction. So? If we've got a job to do, we do it. The problem here is this near-universal expectations that atheists have to respect religion in order to get along with people: we don't, and it's ridiculous to yell at us that we're supposed to lie and hide our ideas for fear of offense. Atheists are quite accustomed to working with people who have crazy beliefs -- we're the minority, remember -- and coping just fine. If there are problems, it's from the other side, from people who expect to be able to dictate what we think and demand that we pay lip service to their faith. I won't do that. I want them to learn what tolerance really means. As for those faith projects you like: I've looked into Evolution Sunday a bit. I dislike it intensely, and if that effort shut down abruptly because one day PZ Myers said he didn't like religion, I'd consider myself to have done a good day's work. I've read a bunch of the sermons they have on site, and haven't found one yet that wasn't a mucked-up abomination that does more harm than good to science education. Those are clear cases of religion using science (bad science) to promote more religion, and the project does science no favors.

John Kwok said: I won't argue with you here, but to note that I think you, Coyne, and now, regrettably, Hoppe, are wrong to criticize the NCSE Faith Project, when it is consistent with ongoing work done at a respectable institute like Columbia University's Center for the Study of Science and Religion.

John Kwok said: I won't argue with you here, but to note that I think you, Coyne, and now, regrettably, Hoppe, are wrong to criticize the NCSE Faith Project, when it is consistent with ongoing work done at a respectable institute like Columbia University's Center for the Study of Science and Religion.

You are also making it too easy for delusional creationists to yell and to scream that the only ones capable of accepting evolution as valid science are godless atheists:

Your attention to the details and nuances of religious belief are very helpful. PZ’s passionate pursuit of getting the honest truth out there is driving the discussion. The point is, the discussion is taking place. I find that refreshing.

— Mike Elzinga

John Pieret said, It is just as against the First Amendment to teach atheism is true in public schools as it is to teach Christianity is. If a court is convinced that evolution is, in fact, an atheist philosophy, it would necessary have to ban it from public school science classes and relegate it to comparative religion or civics classes.

Larry Moran said: What if it could be demonstrated that the correct teaching of science conflicts with the religious views of almost every student in the public schools? I believe that's the case. Does that make teaching of science illegal?

All one has to do is look at the taunting by FL, Sal, and Ray. They are totally clueless. Sure they will attempt to capitalize on such discussions with their followers, but we already know they do that anyway.

If we already know they do it, why give them more ammo, and more credibility, by making statements about other people's religions that are demonstrably wrong, and that, in many cases, contradict the message we're trying to put out? The more idiotic and counterproductive statements we make, the more successful their tactics are likely to be. What good does it do, for example, to keep on saying "science and religion are incompatible," when a) it's demonstrably falsified by the huge number of believers who can indeed do honest science, and b) that's THEIR talking-point and it serves THEIR purposes more than ours?

I've been hearing quotes from conservative evangelical Christians who have totally renounced creationism and accepted that evolution is honest, useful science. Not liberal Christians, not Unitarians, not Catholics, but Protestant evangelicals! They've reconciled their faith with new knowledge, just as so many Christians have reconciled themselves with the round Earth and heliocentrism in the past. This is NOT the time to be saying that science and religion are incompatible.

Yes, it's good to have a debate, but it would be even better if that debate reflected a better understanding of what's going on outside our own camp.

Larry Moran said:

John Pieret said, It is just as against the First Amendment to teach atheism is true in public schools as it is to teach Christianity is. If a court is convinced that evolution is, in fact, an atheist philosophy, it would necessary have to ban it from public school science classes and relegate it to comparative religion or civics classes.

What if it could be demonstrated that the correct teaching of science conflicts with the religious views of almost every student in the public schools? I believe that's the case. Does that make teaching of science illegal?

One might argue that "the correct teaching of science" requires that students learn and practise the inherent requirement of science that a proposition should not be accepted into credence until it has been successfully and repeatedly tested against empirical evidence obtained from observation.

That is certainly sound science, but if it were the standard that religious beliefs were measured against, I can't think of any that would survive. I wonder if that were the demonstration to which Larry Moran was referring?

GuyeFaux said:

jasonmitchell said: hear hear! I think the NCSE hasn't gone far enough! - although the Faith project offers evidence that religion and science do not necessarily conflict- and some people of faith accept the facts of evolution - I don't see enough explaination of WHY that is. It's because science is a secular persuit (sic) and 'secular' is not the same as 'athiest' 'god free' is not the same as 'godless' !

Genuinely curious, what do you think the difference is? And please, no straw-men of what atheists believe. Hess's essays, endorsed by the NCSE, is light apologetics. It stakes out a pretty clear philosophical position which is opposed by many others, including atheism. Though it does answer your question of "WHY that is." Out of many opposing theological arguments to reconcile evolution with faith, atheism being one such an argument, the NCSE chose the one which it decided was the most palatable to its target audience. As such, it waded foolishly into theology. More appropriate, non-committal answers exist that don't pander to any one philosophy. Hell, I wouldn't be offended if the NCSE listed a catalog of reconciliation methods, and simply stayed the hell out of apologetics.

Raging Bee said: I've been hearing quotes from conservative evangelical Christians who have totally renounced creationism and accepted that evolution is honest, useful science. Not liberal Christians, not Unitarians, not Catholics, but Protestant evangelicals! They've reconciled their faith with new knowledge, just as so many Christians have reconciled themselves with the round Earth and heliocentrism in the past. This is NOT the time to be saying that science and religion are incompatible. Yes, it's good to have a debate, but it would be even better if that debate reflected a better understanding of what's going on outside our own camp.

J.J.E. said:

John Kwok said: I won't argue with you here, but to note that I think you, Coyne, and now, regrettably, Hoppe, are wrong to criticize the NCSE Faith Project, when it is consistent with ongoing work done at a respectable institute like Columbia University's Center for the Study of Science and Religion.

This is flawed logic. It is an appeal to authority. A "respectable organization", the NAS, also supported eugenics in its history, but no longer does so. But your logic above would require that eugenics was therefore acceptable in the 30s because it was supported by the NAS (if you though the NAS was "respectable" enough, that is, another flaw in your logic; what is "respectable enough"?). And the reason eugenics is not now accepted is because that same NAS doesn't endorse it. Anyway, John, you are dealing with a bunch of curious, interested people here, many of whom are professional scientists and philosophers, etc. We can handle the full glory of an argument, gory details and all. You do not need to rely on the credentials of those that support a position to lend an argument strength. Explain your position in great detail, leave the credentials and fellow proponents at the door, and let the argument stand or fall on its own merits. It is irrelevant that CSR adopts this approach. The question is, why is the approach good to begin with?

Raging Bee said: All one has to do is look at the taunting by FL, Sal, and Ray. They are totally clueless. Sure they will attempt to capitalize on such discussions with their followers, but we already know they do that anyway. If we already know they do it, why give them more ammo, and more credibility, by making statements about other people's religions that are demonstrably wrong, and that, in many cases, contradict the message we're trying to put out? The more idiotic and counterproductive statements we make, the more successful their tactics are likely to be. What good does it do, for example, to keep on saying "science and religion are incompatible," when a) it's demonstrably falsified by the huge number of believers who can indeed do honest science, and b) that's THEIR talking-point and it serves THEIR purposes more than ours? I've been hearing quotes from conservative evangelical Christians who have totally renounced creationism and accepted that evolution is honest, useful science. Not liberal Christians, not Unitarians, not Catholics, but Protestant evangelicals! They've reconciled their faith with new knowledge, just as so many Christians have reconciled themselves with the round Earth and heliocentrism in the past. This is NOT the time to be saying that science and religion are incompatible. Yes, it's good to have a debate, but it would be even better if that debate reflected a better understanding of what's going on outside our own camp.

RBH (and others) -

Here's why NCSE should be involved in the religion vs. science issue:

http://ncseweb.org/rncse/22/1-2/why-ncse-should-be-involved-science-religion-dialog

This is an approximately 7 year-old statement which wasn't written by Hess, but apparently, a predecessor of his,
Phinna Borgeson.

Here's her statement in its entirety, and one which I believe that NCSE still strongly endorses:

From time to time at NCSE, we hear questions from skeptical, agnostic, and atheistic members who wonder what we are doing getting involved with people of faith. Creationism in its several forms is, after all, largely motivated by religion. Many of the household names in evolutionary science are quite vocal about the death of religion as they see it, while others seem to see religion as tolerable as long as it is limited to private, individual faith or to informing moral and ethical decisions. So why would NCSE want to be involved in science and religion conversations?

Perhaps the first reason is simply that many NCSE members are people who belong to communities of faith. They support the teaching of evolution; they disagree strongly with creationist attempts to substitute their spin on religion for science, yet they are themselves religious. NCSE is a membership organization, and a part of what we do is support our members in their advocacy for evolutionary science. That means being where they are, and that is sometimes in the thoughtful dialogs between science and theology – the places not just where science and theology conflict and contrast but where they make contact with and confirm each other's assumptions and world views.

The second reason is what we might unabashedly call good politics. Not all Christians are creationists, and many are not happy about the appropriation of the name "Christian" as synonymous with anti-evolutionist – as well as with other reactionary and exclusivistic stances. Many Christians deplore equating "Christian" with the radical religious right and enemies of religious liberty. Many moderate and liberal Christians, and yes, even some conservative Christians, are our allies in working to keep religion out of the science classroom. We simply cannot make common cause with Christians who stand for evolution if we use the categories "Christian" or "religious" for one narrow stripe of Christian tradition and activism.

When working for Unitarian-Universalist Project Freedom of Religion in Southern California in the late 1990s, I did considerable reading and research on all the issues that were favorites of the religious right. Reading Perfect Enemies: The Religious Right, the Gay Movement and the Politics of the 1990s by Chris Bull and John Gallagher, I saw how easy it is to make perfect enemies – how tempting it is for both sides on a controversial issue to play to each other's prejudices, hobby horses, and weaknesses in such a way as to keep the conflict going without getting anywhere.

Two significant ways to avoid such a situation caught my attention. Do not adopt a campaign mentality, but build a movement for the long haul – a strategy at which NCSE excels. Another involves finding those people in the middle who are more open to dialog than invested in being the perfect enemy. When it comes to supporting the teaching of evolution, those people are most likely to be found among people of faith who reject the claims of the religious right, but themselves make faith claims of a broader and more exploratory nature. Allying with such folks is good politics. There is no need to make perfect enemies.

These are perhaps the major reasons, and the most obvious ones, that NCSE needs to be there in science and religion dialogs. But there are also softer reasons – reasons not just of obligation and expedience, but of values.

One I have already mentioned is the ethical connection. People of different faiths and no faith agree that the insights of both the biological sciences and of theological reflection are needed if the human community is to grapple effectively with issues in human genetics and the human impact on the rest of the life on our planet. While these issues are not primary to the mission of NCSE, the scientific literacy we support and advocate is partnered in public debate with theological and philosophical literacy. While actively working for better science teaching, free of religious restraints, we must also respect those exchanges in which we "deal with our deepest differences".

Finally, NCSE has been effective because we connect, encourage, and provide resources to people at the grassroots – dealing with real threats to the teaching of evolution in their communities. We recognize that it takes whole communities to do this, with activists from education, science, citizen groups, and religious congregations working together. Yet many religious congregations that want to be partners in our cause have not done the dialog work at the local level that can help them to argue for sound science teaching from a faith perspective. We cannot do that work for them, but we can point them toward resources that can help if, and only if, we are involved and informed about what is happening nationally and internationally in the conversation between religion and science.

Chris Ho_Stuart says,
As soon as you make it a part of your lesson plan to teach that these scientific models conflict with all religious belief, or all belief in God, you’ve crossed the line that John defines. This isn’t complicated.

Let’s face it. A good education of any sort will necessarily cause religious students to question their beliefs. That’s what education is all about. If casting doubt on religious beliefs is against the Constitution then Americans should abandon public education altogether.

Just as they may neither advance nor inhibit any religious doctrine, teachers should not ridicule, for example, a student's religious explanation for life on earth.

I can imagine how I’d handle that question in a public school setting: “Yes, Johnny, the scientific evidence tells us that the earth is old – billions of years old – and there’s no geological evidence of a global catastrophic flood.” Period.

IANAL, but this is perfectly okay, IMHO; it's a flat-out factual statement, unembellished with any stated opinion about any part of any religion, or religion in general.

Of course, the creo-hysterics won't like that one bit, and will try to drum up a huge stink about how persecuted they are yadayadayada. So one of them might get their kid to ask "But does that mean the Bible is wrong?" Then, when the teacher points out another flat-out fact -- "the six-day account in Genesis is not supported by the evidence" -- out come the megaphones and the victimhood mentality and the "state attack on religion" arguments, and, possibly, a campaign to intimidate teachers and school officials into just soft-pedaling or ignoring geology and evolution altogether.

Teacher:

“Yes, Johnny, the scientific evidence tells us that the earth is old – billions of years old – and there’s no geological evidence of a global catastrophic flood.” Period.

Johnny:

“But does that mean the Bible is wrong?”

Teacher:

"I have no idea. I'm only here to teach science. Perhaps you should ask your pastor to explain the Bible to you. Now, let's go on to discuss transitional fossils. This will be on the test."

Larry Moran said:

Chris Ho_Stuart says,
As soon as you make it a part of your lesson plan to teach that these scientific models conflict with all religious belief, or all belief in God, you’ve crossed the line that John defines. This isn’t complicated.

Actually it's very complicated. At the Center for Inquiry Conference in Washington a few eeks ago we had a discussion about this very topic. A high school biology teacher stood up and reported that it was next to impossible to do what you suggest. It will be obvious to every single student that what the teachers says about the age of the Earth and evolution conflicts with a literal interpretation of Genesis, for example. You can't avoid saying something about that conflict, especially if students put up their hands and ask you directly whether science is consistent with the deluge. It will be obvious that every common religious belief is threatened by a good science education.

Let's face it. A good education of any sort will necessarily cause religious students to question their beliefs. That's what education is all about. If casting doubt on religious beliefs is against the Constitution then Americans should abandon public education altogether.

I have read the arguements from boths sides of the issue: some stating that to accept evolution, you must be an atheist. Others have said that faith and evolution are not incompatible. While I sympathize more with the latter view, I have to suggest that it isn't that simple.

Both sides of the arguement are wrong.

The question is not whether faith is compatible or not with evolution is a moot point. [b]In order to accept evolution, you need only accept the evidence.[/b] This is the same for all science.

We shouldn't be addressing science in terms of religion (whether pro- or anti-). Religious people with either be for or against the facts of evolution no matter what whether we address religion or not. Statements that say that reason and faith are not incompatible really do nothing to change this. In fact, to the religious, such statements can seem antagonistic.

Instead, science needs to present itself as secular. Evolution is simply indifferent to religion. To promote science, the facts are the same no matter what belief the individual hearing them. While there are those that dispute the fact, it generally means that they are ignoring or misinterpreting others. This can be done by the religious or the non-religious. The scientific or the layman. Why make a statement regarding religion when, in fact, religion should be ignored.

Obviously, those who argue most stringently against evolution are those with a religious bias. However, in most cases (like with the Intelligent Design arguement), they try to disguise their bias by putting it in scientific terms.

The Dover trial showed us one thing: those people cannot compete on that level. Their science is flawed and without support. They ended up looking dishonest. Creationist trying to enter the science arena simply end up looking like fools when the truth is exposed. However, going in the other direction, science (and evolution in particular) is likely to look equally ridiculous. Science cannot claim to compatible with religion for those who take the writings of Genesis to be literally true. Science then ends up looking foolish and disengenuous in return.

Instead, it is better to make scientific claims and support those claims with evidence (as scientists have been doing in all fields for many centuries). Vigorously and completely destroy the arguements of those who would argue against the science without evidence or by dismissing or misrepresenting facts. This will be what convinces people in the long run. Scientists won't convince everyone but the general public will be more likely to accept a strong presentation of the facts, well-thought and well-presented, than an arguement lacking facts.