Stuck in moderation at Coyne's place

RBH -

I have the utmost admiration for Jerry Coyne's work as an evolutionary geneticist. I can't claim similar admiration for his ongoing war against "accomodationism". Even his ally Richard Dawkins has recognized the necessity for some "accomodationism" by visiting NCSE during his Fall 2009 book tour of his "The Greatest Show on Earth". IMHO this is a mere tempest in the teapot which is not only quite distracting, but I fear, merely add more fuel to the fire for
creos who claim that "belief" in biological evolution must mean acceptance of Atheism coupled with rejection of Christianity or any other religion.

It makes perfect sense to be allied with theists who support science. Their existence destroys the only popular argument creationists really have -- that evolution = atheism. When it's clearly demonstrated that this is false, then they have nothing left except scripture -- which isn't going to fly past the Constitution in public schools.

Anybody know if Jerry Coyne is on deck?

I dunno, but I note some concern in very recent comments there. I don't know how he handles comment moderation and whether any of his co-bloggers (or at least one, Greg Mayer) participate in it at need.

He was in South America, he might be traveling. No reason to assume anything untoward, anyway, goodness knows I don't keep up with the blog auto-emails from PT, and links or long posts or formatting code or a new user or whatever can shunt something to the owner-approval-required zone.

That said, Coyne's comments are off in several ways. (1) He quotes NCSE's long-standing policy, but apparently doesn't get it. NCSE has always worked with people with diverse religious positions towards the common goal of promoting evolution education. Coyne's goal is promoting atheism. That's fine, but it's not NCSE's goal -- which is also fine: different organizations have different goals.

(2) It just so happens that the people who currently most "need to get religion" when it comes to evolution are the religious people, particularly (in the U.S.) Christians (although New Age evolution weirdness is on the rise and in a few decades, who knows what the major problem will be). I agree that it makes raw political sense to work with people from across the religious spectrum, but even more important, in my view, is that (a) basically the main source of opposition to evolution is religious people who oppose evolution because they have the inaccurate idea that evolution = atheism, and (b) while informing people about just the science is necessary, it is not sufficient by itself, because the hugest block is emotional, fearful opposition to evolution. The science has no chance while the fear is there.

(3) All that said, Coyne's comments are inaccurate in another way, since the evolution problem is *really* not with "Christians" in general but with evangelicals. This conference NCSE linked to is substantially another liberal-moderate/mainline Christian affair, and there the evolution battle has long been won (mostly). Such events have limited impact over where it really needs to happen, in evangelical-land (although they have some).

Ironically, BioLogos is the kind of organization that really *does* have a substantial chance of improving the situation amongst evangelicals, since it is by and for evangelicals. (Also ironically, the more BioLogos is attacked by atheists, the more cred it will have with evangelicals, so the Coynes of the world might end up helping out the accomodationists of the world in the end anyway!)

So -- NCSE isn't becoming BioLogos, and neither is the conference that was announced, but it would probably be better if the conference that was announced was *more* like a BioLogos event!

RBH: I commented on Coyne’s site more than five hours ago but my comment is still labeled (after hard refreshes) as “Awaiting moderation” while several comments posted later than mine have appeared. So I’ll reproduce my comment below the fold, warts and all.

I don't think you're being screened because of content. Not much has been going up over there all day and I'd guess there's some problem -- whether human, hardware or software I've not got a clue. Plus, last evening I and others managed to get posts through defending NCSE, which argues against the intentional filtering of contrary viewpoints. I doubt Jerry would do that anyway.

I probably could have added a snarky remark about, say, Coyne adopting the model of the Texas Department of Education when it fired Chris Comer for calling attention to a talk by Barbara Forrest, but I restrained myself.

I commented on Coyne’s site more than five hours ago but my comment is still labeled (after hard refreshes) as “Awaiting moderation” while several comments posted later than mine have appeared. So I’ll reproduce my comment below the fold, warts and all.

RBH, Calm down. Have you ever commented before? or are you using a different address?
Coyne checks these individually before people can post. He will not let a post go through if the address doesn't match the email address entered. He seems to be offline for the present.

And Nick is wrong - Coyne's goal is promoting rationalism. Religion is not rational.

Michael Fugate said: And Nick is wrong - Coyne's goal is promoting rationalism. Religion is not rational.

"We don’t in fact know, so let a thousand flowers bloom."

So you're against the "Don't be a dick" crowd, then.

~

I agree with Coyne that this event violates the policy: "What is NCSE’s religious position? None." However, this is because all religion is political, so any political moves implicitly involve religion. *Any* policy would violate the NCSE's claimed religious position of "none". The organization is making a theological statement and endorsing religious positions when it says that true things science discovers are god's truth (and it is also thereby violating other religious positions).

They can either pick some religious/political viewpoints because they promote science, or they can favor religious/political viewpoints even when those views interfere with promoting science, but either way, select some they must.

Hopefully they are just being expedient. So Coyne is correct in criticizing them for violating their charter to promote science, but that part of their charter can't be fulfilled no matter what they do, so criticism is really only deserved if it's not the best way to promote science.

That is fine for an organization with only science as a goal, as said in the original post. But they must admit of the possibility that in the future, promoting the sort of skepticism that leads naturally to atheism will be the best religious/political viewpoint to accompany science advocacy. In such a case, they'd better not subordinate promoting science to their wishy washy accommodationist kumbaya woo. Since they're taking a religious stand here to promote science, as Coyne points out and some deny, they'd better be willing to do likewise and promote atheism if and when the time comes that that is more effective. I suspect they aren't.

Coyne needs to get a grip, seriously. No doubt if he had his way, all evolutionists would also be atheists. But simple belief in theism does not negate evolution, nor does acceptance of the evidences and the processes of evolution negate theism. Thus, he is promoting a false dichotomy, as much as religious fundamentalists do.

"If Coyne is a scientist, then he should be promoting science."

What if he raises orchids as a hobby? Do tell us what his moral responsibilities would be then.

"And atheism is derived from rationalism."

Really? No one has ever been an atheist without thinking that reason alone can produce knowledge? That's quite precocious of...all of humanity. Tell us, when do people get such insight? At birth, or before? Perhaps you can by extention resolve for us all exactly when in fetal development abortion should be more restricted than earlier!

"I’m agnostic, seeing no empirical evidence either to affirm God or deny him."

For every legitimate use of the English word "God", there is an equal lack of corroborative or adverse evidence? That's quite a dictionary you're using or...well, I hope that's the only issue.

I am sympathetic with Richard's position on this. When one sees a religious denomination supporting the understanding of evolution, is this to be seen as an opportunity to point out that they are being inconsistent? Or is it an opportunity to point out that creationists are wrong when they argue that people have a forced choice between religion and science?

Another example of a wrongheaded response to this was PZ Myers's reaction to the original Clergy Letter Project, where 10,000 clergymen agreed to mention evolution (favorably) in their sermons. To Myers they were trying to exploit evolution and ride on its coattails. To me it looked more like a welcome rebuttal to the argument that religious belief mandated that you had to be a creationist.

Dale Husband said:

I commented on Coyne’s site more than five hours ago but my comment is still labeled (after hard refreshes) as “Awaiting moderation” while several comments posted later than mine have appeared. So I’ll reproduce my comment below the fold, warts and all.

What? Is Coyne being a coward, no better than the bigots at Uncommon Descent who use to ban people for disagreeing with their ID dogmas?

Dale Husband said: Coyne needs to get a grip, seriously. No doubt if he had his way, all evolutionists would also be atheists. But simple belief in theism does not negate evolution, nor does acceptance of the evidences and the processes of evolution negate theism. Thus, he is promoting a false dichotomy, as much as religious fundamentalists do.

I don’t see any point in attacking moderate religions that have no problem with evolution. After all, many people in these religions have their churches as an important centering focus and source of social support and tradition. They don’t have the time to think about possible inconstancies between evolution and church doctrine. They have busy lives and other important issues to grapple with.

And most of these people are good people whose company we enjoy and who have various talents (e.g., artistic, or musical) that make our society function better while contributing to the welfare of people who are less fortunate.

It seems a bit too cranky to be miffed about good people who wish no harm to anyone, who don’t have the time for science, but who do have other talents we depend on.

Everyone starts with different knowledge, progresses through life’s mileposts at different rates, and encounters various issues at different times in their lives. Then we all die without having resolved every issue. What right do we have to be upset about what other people don’t get to?

Bobo said:

Dale Husband said: ...Thus, he is promoting a false dichotomy, as much as religious fundamentalists do.

No, he is suggesting that the NCSE not promote woo, as they have explicitly stated that they are not in the woo business. NCSE should promote neither religion nor atheism, and if they choose to promote one then they should promote both.

Joe Felsenstein said: When one sees a religious denomination supporting the understanding of evolution, is this to be seen as an opportunity to point out that they are being inconsistent? Or is it an opportunity to point out that creationists are wrong when they argue that people have a forced choice between religion and science?

Mike Elzinga said: I don’t see any point in attacking moderate religions that have no problem with evolution. It seems a bit too cranky to be miffed about good people who wish no harm to anyone, who don’t have the time for science, but who do have other talents we depend on.

RBH - even if you have commented there before, on many systems any post with two or more links (and sometimes those with any links) gets automatically diverted for moderation.

On the argument - I think people (including you, RBH) missed Coyne's point. It's not that they shouldn't advertise any events that discuss compatibility among religion and science, but that this one - with one scientist and eight theologians, and a stated mission that "Religious faith and practice can be positively strengthened by what God is revealing through science!" - was so silly for a supposedly secular organization to mention. Yes, there is a distinction between the dickish "accomodationism" of Chris Mooney et al., who demand that people Coyne and PZ Myers STFU, and outreach to believers. But NCSE's attempts to do the latter often come off as promoting religion.

Joe Felsenstein said: I am sympathetic with Richard's position on this. When one sees a religious denomination supporting the understanding of evolution, is this to be seen as an opportunity to point out that they are being inconsistent? Or is it an opportunity to point out that creationists are wrong when they argue that people have a forced choice between religion and science? Another example of a wrongheaded response to this was PZ Myers's reaction to the original Clergy Letter Project, where 10,000 clergymen agreed to mention evolution (favorably) in their sermons. To Myers they were trying to exploit evolution and ride on its coattails. To me it looked more like a welcome rebuttal to the argument that religious belief mandated that you had to be a creationist.

I’m agnostic, seeing no empirical evidence either to affirm God or deny him

John Kwok said: RBH - I have the utmost admiration for Jerry Coyne's work as an evolutionary geneticist. I can't claim similar admiration for his ongoing war against "accomodationism". Even his ally Richard Dawkins has recognized the necessity for some "accomodationism" by visiting NCSE during his Fall 2009 book tour of his "The Greatest Show on Earth". IMHO this is a mere tempest in the teapot which is not only quite distracting, but I fear, merely add more fuel to the fire for creos who claim that "belief" in biological evolution must mean acceptance of Atheism coupled with rejection of Christianity or any other religion.

Hi, RBH.

Jerry had surgery last week and seems to be off-line at the moment Be patient on the moderation bit.

I guess my views on this are similar to Jerry's. It disgusts me to see NCSE endorsing religious events like this. One has to look closely to see that it's not actually their event -- for example, they put out a Facebook update with this as an upcoming event, which is where I first saw it.

Joe Felsenstein said: I am sympathetic with Richard's position on this. When one sees a religious denomination supporting the understanding of evolution, is this to be seen as an opportunity to point out that they are being inconsistent? Or is it an opportunity to point out that creationists are wrong when they argue that people have a forced choice between religion and science? Another example of a wrongheaded response to this was PZ Myers's reaction to the original Clergy Letter Project, where 10,000 clergymen agreed to mention evolution (favorably) in their sermons. To Myers they were trying to exploit evolution and ride on its coattails. To me it looked more like a welcome rebuttal to the argument that religious belief mandated that you had to be a creationist.

Frank J said:

John Kwok said: RBH - I have the utmost admiration for Jerry Coyne's work as an evolutionary geneticist. I can't claim similar admiration for his ongoing war against "accomodationism". Even his ally Richard Dawkins has recognized the necessity for some "accomodationism" by visiting NCSE during his Fall 2009 book tour of his "The Greatest Show on Earth". IMHO this is a mere tempest in the teapot which is not only quite distracting, but I fear, merely add more fuel to the fire for creos who claim that "belief" in biological evolution must mean acceptance of Atheism coupled with rejection of Christianity or any other religion.

It was sad when I attended the "Darwin Day" celebration in Philadelphia. Coyne and Ken Miller, whom I have respected for years, especially for how they exposed Behe's pseudoscientific tricks, both gave excellent talks. But they sat far apart in the audience and hardly talked to each other. I might not have noticed, but just days before I had read their online debate. As for my own theology, I fall somewhere between Coyne's and Miller's. I think that Miller's approach is better for the audience we need to reach (nonscientists who are not hopelessly in denial of evolution). But I hope that those like me most interested in the "science vs. pseudoscience" aspect of "evolution vs. creationism/ID" can tune out all their personal speculation about "ultimate causes" and see both as excellent resouces in combating pseudoscience peddlers who would mislead students to further their radical political agenda.

Michael Fugate said: RBH, Calm down. Have you ever commented before? or are you using a different address? Coyne checks these individually before people can post. He will not let a post go through if the address doesn't match the email address entered. He seems to be offline for the present. And Nick is wrong - Coyne's goal is promoting rationalism. Religion is not rational.

RBH is correct to note that this is a political issue -- if it were strictly a matter of scientific evidence, creationism wouldn't be an issue now at all and creationists would be as soundly mocked in public as believers in a flat earth. Additionally, in our current situation, Christian fundamentalism has a strong voice in the political debate. If NCSE ignores this, they might as well close up shop.

Instead, NCSE's site notes "three pillars of creationism," the second of which is "Evolution Equates to Atheism." The "Evolving Christianity" (ugh!) webcast is directly relevant to this pillar of creationism. If you look at the GSS data for 2008 (variables EVOLVED and FUND), you'll find that in 2008, evolution deniers were 44% fundamentalist, 38% theological moderates, and 18% theological liberals. While I doubt many of the fundamentalists would be influenced by the "Evolving Christianity" (ugh!) webcast, there is potential to do some good among the 56% of evolution deniers who are not fundamentalists.

If NCSE were telling fundamentalists they need to find a new church or abandon religion, I would be disturbed. As it is, they're just saying, here's a discussion among some people of faith that you might be interested in -- this seems to me to be perfectly in-bounds and in direct support of NCSE's stated goals.

I will also note that, at a private talk before fellow Brown University alumni here in New York City a few years ago, Ken observed that those who embrace faiths hostile to science should reject them. Clearly Ken has not been - nor has he ever tried to be - the kind of "accomodationist" which Coyne, Myers and others have contended, by falsely claiming that Ken is trying to make evolution seem better to his fellow devout Christians as if evolution was a bitter pill best swallowed sooner rather than later.

Stuart Weinstein is absolutely right that both Coyne and Myers seem more interested in using science education as a "front on the culture war" than in emphasizing its importance on its own merits, especially with regards to ensuring that we have a well educated public that is informed on science and technology and can influence successfully those involved in framing and implementing policy on science and technology, both on the local and national levels.

Bobo said: No, he ~always~ requires approval for the first comment from either a given IP or email address. If you haven't tried to comment before, you have to wait. Hoppe is being a paranoid baby.

Ray Moscow said: Hi, RBH. Jerry had surgery last week and seems to be off-line at the moment Be patient on the moderation bit. I guess my views on this are similar to Jerry's. It disgusts me to see NCSE endorsing religious events like this. One has to look closely to see that it's not actually their event -- for example, they put out a Facebook update with this as an upcoming event, which is where I first saw it.

We all understand that NCSE has to forge alliances between atheists, scientists, and theists in order to advance their goal of keeping creationism out of the public schools.

Sometimes it's not easy to accommodate both atheists and theists and this makes it very difficult for NCSE to build a working alliance.

In the war between science and religion there are three possible strategies that NCSE could take.

1. Science and religion are incompatible—you can't believe in god if you accept science.

2. Science and religion are perfectly compatible—it's possible to be very religious and still accept all the findings of science.

3. NCSE will not endorse either point of view since it's important for atheist scientists to find common ground with theists on the question of teaching creationism. NCSE will be neutral in the big battle between science and religion.

Many of us believe that #3 should be the official position of NCSE. Unfortunately, it has chosen #2 and the consequences are not surprising. NCSE is rapidly losing credibility among those vocal atheist scientists who think the compatibilist position is factually incorrect, even though it might be politically expedient.

I assume that the choice is deliberate. NCSE thinks it's better to accommodate theists by actively supporting their position on the religion vs science war. They do this in the full knowledge that this will antagonize some other potential allies. Apparently those other potential allies (incompatibilist atheist scientists) aren't as important—their loss is regrettable (perhaps?) but the sacrifice of their support will be beneficial in the long run. Time will tell. How do you think it's going so far?

It is also necessary to know at the outset that this is not a scientific debate, though it sometimes takes on scientific trappings. It is a political debate pure and simple, and creationists selectively enlist scientific and pseudoscientific arguments in their political cause, but not for the sake of honest scientific inquiry. (Italics added)

And I'll note that my comment is now out of moderation.

FYI: According to a post this AM at WEIT, Coyne has been out with the flu for the last few days.

For science and religion to be "perfectly" compatible, as in #2, science would have to be compatible with creationism/ID as well as theistic evolution. NCSE would never do that. While I too would prefer them to be closer to #3, I would imagine that the ones they alienate prefer #1.

My 2c on how it's going so far:

Until the majority of nonscientists understand the counterintuitive concepts of healthy debates. science will always be at a disadvantage. In a way I like that scientists disagree on science, politics and religion. If anything it's a sign of a healthy theory that the religious/political differences are not related to the scientific disagreements. In contrast, "scientific" disagreements within ID/creationism (in the rare cases that they aren't covered up) are almost always tied to religious/political difference (e.g. whether scripture counts as evidence).

I would never recommend that we imitate the anti-evolution activists by mostly covering up differences for the sake of a "big tent." But I also think that our religion part of the debate has crossed the line into "unhealthy" territory.

Last year a middle school science teacher [John Freshwater] in my local school district proposed that the Intelligent Design Network’s Objective Origins Teaching Policy be adopted by the district. After some debate and politicking it was rejected by the Board of Education, as was a watered down version offered after the rejection of the initial proposal. After thinking about it at length and talking with people in the community and elsewhere, what I am realizing is that this is not something that has anything to do with reason and science; it is about fear. ... I am beginning to understand that the core motivation driving the supporters of such proposals is fear. Not fear for themselves – they are too strong in their faith to be corrupted by evolutionary science. It is fear for their children and in particular, fear for their children’s souls. There is a genuine belief that accepting an evolutionary view of biological phenomena is a giant step on the road to atheism, and in learning evolutionary theory their children are in peril of losing salvation. Given the beliefs they hold, this is not a silly fear. From their perspective, atheism is a deadly threat, and evolution is a door through which that threat can enter to corrupt one’s child. No amount of scientific research, no citations of scientific studies, no detailed criticism of the Wellsian trash science offered in “teach the controversy” proposals, speaks to those fears. If one genuinely fears that learning evolution will corrupt one’s children and damn them for eternity, scientific reasoning is wholly irrelevant.

Frank J said: Until the majority of nonscientists understand the counterintuitive concepts of healthy debates. science will always be at a disadvantage. In a way I like that scientists disagree on science, politics and religion. If anything it's a sign of a healthy theory that the religious/political differences are not related to the scientific disagreements. In contrast, "scientific" disagreements within ID/creationism (in the rare cases that they aren't covered up) are almost always tied to religious/political difference (e.g. whether scripture counts as evidence).

Bobo said: No, he is suggesting that the NCSE not promote woo, as they have explicitly stated that they are not in the woo business. NCSE should promote neither religion nor atheism, and if they choose to promote one then they should promote both.

Argh said: I agree with Coyne that this event violates the policy: “What is NCSE’s religious position? None.”

The organization is making a theological statement and endorsing religious positions when it says that true things science discovers are god’s truth.

This is not a difficult concept. When someone is involved in activities A and B, and you happen to like B, acknowledging that they are involved in B is not ‘promoting’ A.

ben said:

I’m agnostic, seeing no empirical evidence either to affirm God or deny him

But apparently you do see empirical evidence that, if a god exists, it's a "him", and there's just one of him. It sounds like, at a minimum, your accomodationism favors some religious traditions--a monothestic, male deity is apparently assumed--over others, despite the supposed lack of evidence for any religious proposition. Why is that?

Bobo said:

Dale Husband said: Coyne needs to get a grip, seriously. No doubt if he had his way, all evolutionists would also be atheists. But simple belief in theism does not negate evolution, nor does acceptance of the evidences and the processes of evolution negate theism. Thus, he is promoting a false dichotomy, as much as religious fundamentalists do.

No, he is suggesting that the NCSE not promote woo, as they have explicitly stated that they are not in the woo business. NCSE should promote neither religion nor atheism, and if they choose to promote one then they should promote both.

The National Center for Science Education has no business promoting religion. The whole extent of their stance on religion should be, "Religion and science are distinct ways of understanding the world; therefore, religion has no more place in the science classroom than auto mechanics does in the music classroom."

Of course, in the real world, Christianity is blatantly obviously fundamentally incompatible with the Theory of Evolution. Amongst its core tenets is an instance of human parthenogenesis with a male offspring, something that not only has never been observed but which would radically revolutionize our understanding of reproductive biology (and thus evolution) if ever observed.

The NCSE doesn't need to rub such facts in the noses of Christians, but such discrepancies demonstrate why religion and science are toxic to each other, and why the NCSE needs to keep religion (but not religionists) at arm's length or farther.

Cheers,

b&

You CANNOT avoid mentioning religious concepts on a site dedicated to science education

Apropos of Matt’s post just below, in a post titled “NCSE becomes BioLogos” Jerry Coyne has thrown a hissy fit over NCSE noting the upcoming Webcast on ‘Evolving Christianity’ featuring a number of theists of varying stripes speaking on how they accommodate their theism and science in general and evolution in particular.

The tragedy of Coyne's argument is the way in which it seeks to enlist science in a frankly philosophical crusade — a campaign to purge science of religionists in the name of doctrinal purity. That campaign will surely fail, but in so doing it may divert those of us who cherish science from a far more urgent task, especially in America today. That is the task of defending scientific rationalism from those who, in the name of religion would subvert it beyond all recognition. In that critical struggle, scientists who are also people of faith are critical allies, and we would do well not to turn those "Ardent Theists" away.

Ben Goren said: The National Center for Science Education has no business promoting religion. The whole extent of their stance on religion should be, "Religion and science are distinct ways of understanding the world; therefore, religion has no more place in the science classroom than auto mechanics does in the music classroom."

Peter Henderson said: Yawn. What's new. This is a major problem for efforts like the clergy letter project to be in any way effective. People such as Coyne, P.Z. Myers, and Jason Rosenhouse really nead to back off.

Post is now up on Coyne's site.

Tulse said: So we should expect the NCSE to promote explicitly atheistic evolution events as well? They would offer an equally prominent mention of a conference on "how evolution allows one to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist"?

But apparently you can avoid mentioning atheist concepts, except to dismiss them.

RBH said: But even in this rural conservative county there are 'moderates'--those who are theists but not Biblical literalists--and no school board election will be won without their active support. Hence the existence of those who profess to be theists and who accept evolution as the best scientific account of the diversity of life on earth is relevant. Whether that position is epistemologically defensible or not (and I believe it is not), there are a lot of such people and it's tactically useful to point to them as theists who claim to be able to reconcile their theism with the science, at the same time saying (if you wish and as I have on occasion), "I myself don't understand how they do it, but they say they do."

Mike Elzinga said: I don’t see any point in attacking moderate religions that have no problem with evolution.

What right do we have to be upset about what other people don’t get to?

eric said: But lets be honest Tulse, Dawkins meant a lot more than merely 'compatible' when he made that statement. He is arguing that evolution lends credence and weight to atheism over theism. And no, I don't think NSCE should be supporting those sorts of statements or conferences. (bolding mine)

But lets be honest Tulse, Dawkins meant a lot more than merely ‘compatible’ when he made that statement. He is arguing that evolution lends credence and weight to atheism over theism.

Tulse said:

You CANNOT avoid mentioning religious concepts on a site dedicated to science education

But apparently you can avoid mentioning atheist concepts, except to dismiss them.

Here is a reading list of theistic evolution. These authors all promote the view that evolutionary biology is the only biology, and that it is easily reconciled biblical religion. All but one are Christians.

Ayala, Francisco
2006 "Darwin and Intelligent Design" Minneapolis: Fortress Press

Ayala, Francisco
2007 "Darwin’s Gift: To Science and Religion" Washington DC: Joseph Henry Press- National Academies Press

Collins, Francis S.
2006 "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief" New York Free Press- Simon and Schuster

Frye, Roland Mushat (editor)
1983 "Is God a Creationist?: The Religious Case Against Creation-Science" New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, Inc.

Giberson, Karl W.
2008 “Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and believe in evolution” New York: HarperCollins

Godfry, Stephen J. and Christopher R. Smith
2005 "Paradigms on Pilgrimage: Creationism, Paleontology, and Biblical Interpretation." Toronto: Clements Publishing.

Haught, John F.
2001 “Responses to 101 Questions on God and Evolution” New York: Paulist Press Haught is a Catholic theologian who testified as a plaintiff expert in the Dover, Pa “Intelligent Design” trial.

Hyers, Conrad
1984 “The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science” Atlanta: John Knox Press (Conrad Hyers has served as Professor of the History of Religion and Chair of the Department of Religion at both Beloit College and at Gustavus Adolphus College. He is also an ordained Presbyterian minister)

Kitcher, Phillip
2007 “Living With Darwin: Evolution, Design, and the Future of Life” Oxford University Press

Miller, Keith B. (editor)
2003 “Perspectives on an Evolving Creation” Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing

Ken Miller
1999 "Finding Darwin's God" New York: HarperCollins
____
2008 “Only a Theory” New York: Viking Press

Slifkin, Rabbi Natan
2006/2008 “The Challenge of Creation: Judaism’s Encounter with Science, Cosmology and Evolution” New York: Zoo Torah and Yashar Books

Towne, Margaret Gray
2003 "Honest to Genesis: A Biblical & Scientific Challenge to Creationism" Baltimore: PublishAmerica"

Young, Davis A.
1995 “The Biblical Flood: A case study of the Church’s Response to extrabiblical evidence” Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, Paternoster Press

Young, Davis A., Ralf F. Stearley
2008 "The Bible, Rocks and Time: Geological Evidence for the Age of the Earth" Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press

Dale Husband said: When atheism is attacked outright on the NCSE website or its other publications, you will have reason to complain about unfair treatment. I dismiss your anti-religious attitude, not your atheism. Slight difference.

When atheism is attacked outright on the NCSE website or its other publications, you will have reason to complain about unfair treatment.

These objections from the atheist fanatics about NCSE sound like the extremist mantra of "Agree with us on everything or we won't help with anything," that cripples so many idealistic movements, splitting them into factions and making them more vulnerable to attacks by their opponents.

The battle over science education is not religious or even scientific; it is POLITICAL, and in politics you sometimes have to join with people you often disagree with on some issues to get things done.

Has NCSE ever claimed to be an atheist organization? Not to my knowledge. So why complain about it now? Because you feel more powerful than in the past and want to control what everyone else says about this issue? Sorry, not accepting that sort of arrogance from ANYONE, religious or atheist.

New Atheists love it when I and others skeptically dissect Creationist claims and blow them away, but as soon as I turn that same skepticism on atheist attitudes, they roar like howler monkeys. And I just laugh at that.

H.H. said: What's upsetting is to see an organization purportedly committed to science education and outreach promoting (not just passively tolerating) pseudo-scientific theology

Calls for them to cease promoting religious tripe is not the same as asking them to stop their outreach to religious communities.

Tulse said: The NCSE website has an entire section on religion, and reconciling religion with evolution. Curiously, it doesn't have any pages that discuss the implications of evolution for atheism. It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest that NCSE isn't attacking the notion that evolution has implications for atheism.

H.H. said: Do you have any problem with moderate religions which distort evolution?

What about moderate religions which use scientific discoveries and knowledge to lend dubious support to their metaphysical assertions? How badly would evolution need to misrepresented and co-opted by a moderate religion before the thing they “have no problem with” is no longer evolution as understood by scientists?

Do you care if the religious ever really comprehend evolution or is it enough for them to cease opposing its instruction?

If the latter, do you really think that even if a sizable majority of Christians come to accept evolution as god’s instrument, that they’ll cease trying to cram their sectarian teleological narrative into biology lessons?

H.H. said:

Dale Husband said: When atheism is attacked outright on the NCSE website or its other publications, you will have reason to complain about unfair treatment. I dismiss your anti-religious attitude, not your atheism. Slight difference.

Wait, what??? You think the NCSE is justified in using it's website to promote religion, but the atheists have no cause to complain unless atheism is attacked outright? What a bizarre concept of "fairness" you hold to. Some might even say it's disgustingly hypocritical.

http://ncse.com/about/faq What is NCSE's religious position? None. The National Center for Science Education is not affiliated with any religious organization or belief. We and our members enthusiastically support the right of every individual to hold, practice, and advocate their beliefs, religious or non-religious. Our members range from devout practitioners of several religions to atheists, with many shades of belief in between. What unites them is a conviction that science and the scientific method, and not any particular religious belief, should determine science curriculum.

What is NCSE's religious position? Atheism. The National Center for Science Education is not affiliated with any religious organization or belief. We see only non-religious positions as credible. Our members include only atheists and agnostics. What unites them is a conviction that science and the scientific method, and not any particular religious belief, should determine science curriculum.

eric said: That there are atheists who think its incompatible? That's true, but even more poltically useless. You can't seriously want them to waste what little nonprofit money they have on making true-but-useless statements, can you?

H.H. said:

Dale Husband said: When atheism is attacked outright on the NCSE website or its other publications, you will have reason to complain about unfair treatment. I dismiss your anti-religious attitude, not your atheism. Slight difference.

Wait, what??? You think the NCSE is justified in using it's website to promote religion, but the atheists have no cause to complain unless atheism is attacked outright? What a bizarre concept of "fairness" you hold to. Some might even say it's disgustingly hypocritical.

eric said: So, just to be clear, your argument here is no mention = attack. Have I got that right?

H.H. said:

eric said: That there are atheists who think its incompatible? That's true, but even more poltically useless. You can't seriously want them to waste what little nonprofit money they have on making true-but-useless statements, can you?

Yes, in fact I can seriously expect the NCSE to acknowledge my views with the same seriousness they they acknowledge views which run contrary to mine. Or neither, as I've previously advocated. That is, of course, if the NCSE is actually serious about maintaining neutrality. If they aren't, that's fine, but they should change their mission statement and expect to lose the support of many atheists they've been taking for granted. Perhaps if we start actively opposing the NCSE they'll begin "outreaching" to us. That seems to be how thing work, according to you.

H.H. said: No. The argument is that promoting only a single viewpoint is the same as advocating for that viewpoint at the expense of all others. Is that really so difficult to understand as you're letting on?

Tulse said:

When atheism is attacked outright on the NCSE website or its other publications, you will have reason to complain about unfair treatment.

The NCSE website has an entire section on religion, and reconciling religion with evolution. Curiously, it doesn't have any pages that discuss the implications of evolution for atheism. It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest that NCSE isn't attacking the notion that evolution has implications for atheism.

Tulse said:

When atheism is attacked outright on the NCSE website or its other publications, you will have reason to complain about unfair treatment.

The NCSE website has an entire section on religion, and reconciling religion with evolution. Curiously, it doesn't have any pages that discuss the implications of evolution for atheism. It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest that NCSE isn't attacking the notion that evolution has implications for atheism.

Mark Perakh was born in 1924 in Kiev, Ukraine. In 1941 he volunteered to fight the German invasion of the USSR. Later he studied at the Odessa Institute of Technology, earning a Diploma in Engineering Physics, and later an equivalent of a PhD degree from the Odessa Polytechnic Institute. In the 1950s he was arrested by the KGB on the charge of engaging in "anti-Soviet propaganda" and spent several years in a Siberian prison camp. Subsequently, he conducted research and taught physics in several universities in the USSR. In 1967 he received a third degree (the highest in the Soviet system) from Kazan Institute of Technology. He emigrated to Israel in 1973, where he was appointed a full professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He received a number of prizes and awards for his research, including one from the Royal Society of London. He has authored close to 300 scientific papers and several monographs, which resulted in an invitation for a two-year stint at the IBM Research Center in the US. Later he joined the faculty at California State University, Fullerton. He retired in 1994 and lives near San Diego. RNCSE: Your own attitude to religion is generally irenic; toward the end of your book, you say that you see no reason to accept the specific claims of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, but you also express agnosticism about the existence of God. What is your reaction to the ongoing debates about whether evolution can be, or should be, used to promote atheism? MP: I think that both viewpoints — one based on the notion that evolution theory leads to the rejection of faith, and the other on the notion that evolution theory can be viewed as compatible with religious faith — are legitimate. The choice between the two should be left to each individual. There is a whole spectrum of views between the two extremes. On one extreme we have, for example, PZ Myers, a pretty militant atheist who perceives no way to reconcile religious faith with the facts of science. I think I understand his attitude and sympathize with it. On the other extreme we have, for example, Kenneth Miller, in whose opinion the firmly established truth of evolution can be reconciled with religious faith, and even can be construed as supporting it. While I personally doubt the validity of Miller's argument in the latter sense, I am inclined to accept his position as a legitimate choice, even if I cannot share it. Should evolution be used to promote atheism? I just believe that everybody must be entitled to his or her own position and to promote it if he or she wishes to do so. So, if PZ Myers sincerely believes that evolution and faith are incompatible, he must have the freedom to promote his view in any way he deems proper. Likewise, if Genie Scott rejects Myers's attitude, and favors a friendly dialog with believers, she must have the right to promote her views as much as she wants. The considerations of which choice is more expedient must, in my view, be secondary. I don't think anybody has a monopoly on truth, so every extreme position has to be evaluated with a grain of salt.

You just lied outright, H. H. Show me where the NCSE promotes religion. Does it say that all NCSE members must be religious? Anywhere? Reporting on a conference of Christians talking about evolution and how it influences their theological views is hardly the same as promoting Christianity itself!

What you are advocating is CENSORSHIP, not fair and balanced reporting of any kind. You want all religious voices silenced, not just fundamentalist ones that are and always have been the real threat.

So show me where you feel atheism has been either attacked or denied on the NCSE website.

YOU would probably have it rewritten to say:

Dale Husband said: MP: I think that both viewpoints — one based on the notion that evolution theory leads to the rejection of faith, and the other on the notion that evolution theory can be viewed as compatible with religious faith — are legitimate. The choice between the two should be left to each individual.

Which is exactly what people like myself, John Kwok, and eric seem to think as well.

H.H. said: Yes, in fact I can seriously expect the NCSE to acknowledge my views with the same seriousness they they acknowledge views which run contrary to mine. Or neither, as I've previously advocated. That is, of course, if the NCSE is actually serious about maintaining neutrality.

eric said: Ah, I think it comes down to you and I having a different concept of religious neutrality. I think of it as neither supporting nor refuting any particular belief about God. You appear to be using it to mean equal outreach messaging to religious and non-religious groups.

The NCSE mission is about educating people about science. They therefore target their message towards the people who need the education.

I do not expect them to create an equal number of messages for the well-science-educated and the poorly-science-educated groups just to appeal to my sense of balance. I do not expect literacy programs to target the already-literate, either.

They neither support nor refute any particular belief about God. That's religiously neutral.

eric said:

Tulse said: The NCSE website has an entire section on religion, and reconciling religion with evolution. Curiously, it doesn't have any pages that discuss the implications of evolution for atheism. It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest that NCSE isn't attacking the notion that evolution has implications for atheism.

So, just to be clear, your argument here is no mention = attack. Have I got that right?

Oh, stop your pathetic whining, H.H. The more you play the victim, the less seriously I will take you.

And that goes for Tulse, P Z Myers, and others who obsessively hate religion itself, rather than the excesses and known falsehoods within religion. You are not infallible, nor are your views the only ones worth mentioning in a public forum.

H.H. said:

eric said: I do not expect them to create an equal number of messages for the well-science-educated and the poorly-science-educated groups just to appeal to my sense of balance. I do not expect literacy programs to target the already-literate, either.

Right. But I would have a problem a literacy program which encourages people to learn to read because the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard mandate it.

You know what would be a neutral position for the NCSE to take on this matter? "Evolution is true. How you reconcile this with your religion is of zero concern to us." That's neutral.

H.H. said: Wouldn't it be wonderful if the NCSE took this position of neutrality instead in the partisan advocacy they are currently displaying with their Faith Project? No, no, no, no, no. You're not for letting people decide for themselves, and you certainly aren't for exposing people to both viewpoints. You're for telling them that there is no conflict via the Faith Project and stopping there, remember?

Larry Moran said: In the war between science and religion there are three possible strategies that NCSE could take. 1. Science and religion are incompatible—you can't believe in god if you accept science. 2. Science and religion are perfectly compatible—it's possible to be very religious and still accept all the findings of science. 3. NCSE will not endorse either point of view since it's important for atheist scientists to find common ground with theists on the question of teaching creationism. NCSE will be neutral in the big battle between science and religion. Many of us believe that #3 should be the official position of NCSE. Unfortunately, it has chosen #2 and the consequences are not surprising.

eric said: If you're a religiously neutal barbequed rib connoisseur, mentioning to other rib lovers that the local church smokes a damn good rib does not violate your neutrality. This is not a difficult concept. When someone is involved in activities A and B, and you happen to like B, acknowledging that they are involved in B is not 'promoting' A...you're pushing the 'promotion' concept to ridiculous extremes. Pointing out that some religious group is hosting an event on evolution is not any sort of theological statement. That logic would lead to the ridiculous conclusion that even mentioning the existence of theistic evolutionists counts as some sort of theological claim.

Argh said: The reason your example doesn't work is that at question here is the possibility that A and B can go together. It's not promoting the church (i.e. the church's doctrine) to say they barbeque well, but it is promoting the idea that barbequing and churches are perfectly compatible.

Pointing out that some religious group is hosting an event on (genuine) evolution is a theological statement that (to the best of the NCSE's knowledge) the theological tenets of that movement aren't mucking up the evolution being taught there. That's an important claim, one that should be made in the light of day rather than weaseled in behind a facade of neutrality.

Whether there should be a blacklist or a whitelist, it is not ridiculous to say that steering constituents to a religious conference engages theological claims and this should be the subject of honest debate.

eric said: Theological neutrality does not require complete silence about the fact that theistic evolutionists exist. Nor does it require that you talk for equal time about theists and atheists. It requires you not take a position on the existence or attributes of God. That is all.

Show me one credible example H.H. where this is true: H.H. said: Show me one example of the NCSE promoting a "Evolution leads to atheism" conference, since that would actually be equivalent to their faith project. Again, that you think atheism needs to be explicitly attacked and not just ignored before the imbalance becomes objectionable speaks to your biases, not mine.

eric said: And it is a fact that some that some faiths say they are compatible with evolution.

NCSE, by reporting to one set of believers that another set of believers have no problem with evolution, is directly addressing their mission. But that it not theological, except in the very broadest sense. Reporting what people believe about God is not the same as making a claim about God.

My contention, in short, is that NCSE can't really fulfill their mission unless they are willing to discuss with theist 'rejecters' what theist 'accepters' believe, because if they don't do that, they aren't striking at the root of the problem.

H.H. said: Ah, so by extension, an organization which has a "White Power Project" and links to a variety of white supremacist organizations (but never an alternative) would still be considered racially inclusive and "neutral" by you so long as they don't take a vocal position on whether or not peoples of color are inferior. And you call my position stupid?

The theory of evolution has no implications for either "religion" or atheism.

It simply does not address those topics.

Since the theory of evolution is a strong and well-established theory, those who contradict it in an ignorant or dishonest manner are always wrong, whatever their motivation for doing so. Whether their motivation is religion, political ideology, narcissistic crackpot fantasies of genius, or anything else.

The NCSE has a very obvious reason for pointing out that many religious people accept the theory of evolution.

That reason has NOTHING to do with promoting any particular religion or view of religion over another.

A common creationist tactic is to lie and say that atheism is the motivation for the theory of evolution.

It is extremely logical for supporters of science to counter this lie by pointing out that many religions do not deny the theory of evolution.

That is the reason that the NCSE makes note of the fact that many denominations do not deny the theory of evolution.

It is also true that educated atheists almost never deny the theory of evolution, but that is not in dispute. Creationists are not claiming that atheists deny evolution. There is little reason to dwell on the fact that atheists do not deny evolution, because nobody says that they do.

That is all there is to it.

harold said: The theory of evolution has no implications for either "religion" or atheism. It simply does not address those topics.

That reason has NOTHING to do with promoting any particular religion or view of religion over another.

You mean no true religion is addressed by evolution.

Right, promoting particular religions and views of religion is a means to promote science, not an end goal of theirs (I hope).

dmab -

Although you appear to be a classic, old fashioned, off topic disruption troll, I would like to thank you for drawing my attention to that excellent List of Prizes for Evidence of the Paranormal list in Wikipedia.

I'm sure it will come in handy.

harold said: However, the theory of evolution simply does not address specific religious questions...For example, if a Jesuit cardinal and an Anglican bishop were involved in a Christological debate...

After all, one reason for fighting against creationism presented as "science" in taxpayer funded schools is that it would be a violation of rights. It would, of course, be equally as much a violation of the rights of students and their families to promote some religion that doesn't deny evolution over other religions, or over atheism, as it would be to promote creationism, in the setting of a public school.

Argh said: I don't have unshakable objections to limited promotion of bullshit, but the dishonesty of pretending it is a neutral viewpoint is distasteful. It bothers me how blithely some people here tolerate religious lies so long as evolution is advanced, something that I think is a short term tactical necessity to some extent, though it is a tool as dangerous as chemical weapons.

I’ve tried to say this several different ways. You are not in charge. Unless you are involved in a religion, you do not have a voice in what constitutes a religious belief. However many religions you’re involved with, I assure you you are missing a few sects. Most importantly, religions observe precious few restrictions regarding what constitute core religious beliefs.

By declaring that something (e.g. evolution) does not contradict religion, you commit the no true Scotsman fallacy.

That’s what the NCSE is doing: religious advocacy (aside from school activities, hopefully).

It is, after all, what BioLogos was set up to do, and so far I haven’t seen very many results.

harold said: Did you make a meaningful statement when Biologos was founded, explaining what you would accept as results and how and when you would measure them? After all, if you wait until after the fact, all you have to do is find something that didn't happen, declare that Biologos "should have" achieved it, and declare it a failure on those grounds. I couldn't give a crap about Biologos, personally, but it does annoy me mildly to see people who seem to be trying to do something which is hard not to describe as positive (I confess to seeing religion which does not promote science denial as better than religion which does) constantly being attacked.

John Kwok -

I do agree with your criticisms of Biologos.

I also feel that they are guilty of being sincere and naive.

As you are aware, I am not naive with respect to the personal character and behavior of leading figures in the creationist movement (and virtually all of the non-leading figures I have any knowledge of).

I suppose I have mixed feelings. I don't agree with their religion, or their naive approach, but I think they are trying to be decent and end up getting attacked on all sides.

H.H. said:

Argh said: I don't have unshakable objections to limited promotion of bullshit, but the dishonesty of pretending it is a neutral viewpoint is distasteful. It bothers me how blithely some people here tolerate religious lies so long as evolution is advanced, something that I think is a short term tactical necessity to some extent, though it is a tool as dangerous as chemical weapons.

Couldn't have said it better, although I might voice disagreement on the strategy's necessity. It is, after all, what BioLogos was set up to do, and so far I haven't seen very many results.

harold said: I also feel that they are guilty of being sincere and naive.

As a long term supporter of NCSE (I still have copies of the committees of correspondence reports) and an atheist, this whole discussion strikes me as Sam Houston turning down the help of Davy Crockett at the Alamo because he wasn't a Texan. Folks the "enemy" is the science denier not the religious and you take your help where you can get it. Just because NCSE is mentioning something to do with religion does not mean they are pro-religion or anti-atheist. Atheism does not need any help accepting and understanding evolution but many religious people do. If we can't convince our friends how will we ever be able to even talk to the deniers?

Sorry that was Colonel Travis not Sam Houston

Coming from Northern Europe, I have difficulties in understanding the present situation in the U.S. deleted sentences It seems to me that you are over-exaggerating. I sincerely hope that I am right.

In a broad sense, asserting that a belief in God is compatible with evolution doesn't promote a belief in God, but rather promotes more rational beliefs among those who already believe in God.

This is an important distinction to make. The antecedent of an implication does not need to be true for the implication itself to be true. I suspect every one here (with a few unimportant exceptions) would agree that whether or not you believe in God, evolution still occurred. Simultaneously asserting that a God exist and that evolution occurred may or may not be as self consistent as an assertion that God exist but evolution did not occur; however, the former statement is clearly more in agreement with reality than the later statement, regardless of its self consistence.

Perhaps the best argument to get people to arrive at this happier state of affairs is to emphasize that data trumps theory; i.e. pointing out that theological arguments against evolution are all essentially non-sequiturs because theory cannot prove reality wrong.

If I want to tell Christians to believe in evolution without telling Christians to become atheists, then I have to tell them what a Christian belief in evolution would look like?

At any-rate, time and space are illusions, there is no ontological difference between fiction and fact, and we are all just figments of our own imagination.(*pour one out for Derrida*) (cue Ray comfort saying: but don't imaginings need imaginers? Figments need figmenters?)

Quick: somebody remind me that it is important to base your beliefs on evidence, and that things which make no empirical predictions are just meaningless speculations.

Crap, it's not working.

PPS, anyone responding by referencing Douglass Adams will be murdered and fed to the pigs. Pop culture references are the spawn of satin.

satan.

whatever.

Larry Boy said: PPS, anyone responding by referencing Douglass Adams will be murdered and fed to the pigs. Pop culture references are the spawn of satin.

Larry Boy said:

Larry Boy said: PPS, anyone responding by referencing Douglass Adams will be murdered and fed to the pigs. Pop culture references are the spawn of satin.

Oh, I see what you did there.

Larry Boy said:

Larry Boy said:

Larry Boy said: PPS, anyone responding by referencing Douglass Adams will be murdered and fed to the pigs. Pop culture references are the spawn of satin.

Oh, I see what you did there.

Stop that, if you keep talking to yourself, people will think you are crazy.

If I want to tell Christians to believe in evolution without telling Christians to become atheists, then I have to tell them what a Christian belief in evolution would look like?

RBH said: Whether that position is epistemologically defensible or not (and I believe it is not), there are a lot of such people and it's tactically useful to point to them as theists who claim to be able to reconcile their theism with the science,...

John Kwok said: BioLogos can and should be criticized legitimately for trying to seek some kind of "accomodation" with the Dishonesty Institute, for believing that there are indeed - to paraphrase both Darrel Falk and Karl Giberson - "Brothers in Christ" within the DI who could be persuaded that their espousal of Intelligent Design cretinism is substantially wrong for both scientific AND theological reasons. However, as recent history clearly shows, BioLogos's "diplomatic" efforts have been utterly fruitless.

raven said:

Coming from Northern Europe, I have difficulties in understanding the present situation in the U.S. deleted sentences It seems to me that you are over-exaggerating. I sincerely hope that I am right.

You are an idiot. Or at least hopelessly naive. And no you don't have the slightest idea what is happening here. Admitting ignorance and making claims about a place you know nothing about is silly. A thorough accounting would take pages and pages. In my own field, every once in a while an MD is assassinated by xian terrorists. We are up to 8 dead, 17 attempted murders, and over 200 wounded. During the height of the Bush disaster, roughly one family planning clinic was being blown up or burned down every month. I've been getting death threats for over a decade. Many other scientists get them as well. On a busy day, PZ Myers has been known to get over a hundred. A. Day. Evolutionary biologists and science supporters are occasionally fired, sometimes beaten up, and one was knifed to death by a creationist.

I think the issue is actually much closer to Coyne's perspective than to RBH's. The slam dunk I think comes when one actually looks st where NCSE gets it right. In their clergy letter project, some of the denominational views were actually quite reasonable. And juxtaposing the reasonable ones with the unreasonable ones is actually quite illuminating. In a nutshell, NCSE has done the right thing by pointing to a simple fact that religion need not necessarily support dogma hostile to evolution. That's fine. However, its advocacy should stop there. Unfortunately, they promote not just the simple fact that some denominations don't reject evolution, but that this also implies that religion is not incompatible with evolution (similar but crucially different ideas). In the process they end up promoting tripe like endorsing the "correct" way to read the Bible and also disseminating certain religious doctrines. I've discussed this issue with the Clergy Letter Project before (link below). That the NCSE persists in highlighting theological positions seems altogether inappropriate to me. This is different than highlighting the existence of one specific and relevant theological position: namely that denominations exist that claim to accept the modern theory of evolution. That is a fact worth highlighting by an evolution advocacy organization. Anything else is taking partisan sides. If the NCSE persists in siding with a faction I disagree with, I think it is eminently reasonable to withhold my support of them. If not for this disingenuous bit of pandering, I'd be an enthusiastic supporter.
http://hillcountrydilettante.blogspot.com/

raven said:

Coming from Northern Europe, I have difficulties in understanding the present situation in the U.S. [snip]

You are an idiot. Or at least hopelessly naive. And no you don't have the slightest idea what is happening here. Admitting ignorance and making claims about a place you know nothing about is silly. [snip] They number around 60 million, more than all of Northern Europe combined. ...

Coyne has the flu, so let's not have a hissy fit over whether our comments have been let through.

mary said: As a long term supporter of NCSE (I still have copies of the committees of correspondence reports) and an atheist, this whole discussion strikes me as Sam Houston turning down the help of Davy Crockett at the Alamo because he wasn't a Texan. Folks the "enemy" is the science denier not the religious and you take your help where you can get it. Just because NCSE is mentioning something to do with religion does not mean they are pro-religion or anti-atheist. Atheism does not need any help accepting and understanding evolution but many religious people do. If we can't convince our friends how will we ever be able to even talk to the deniers?

Mike Elzinga said:

John Kwok said: BioLogos can and should be criticized legitimately for trying to seek some kind of "accomodation" with the Dishonesty Institute, for believing that there are indeed - to paraphrase both Darrel Falk and Karl Giberson - "Brothers in Christ" within the DI who could be persuaded that their espousal of Intelligent Design cretinism is substantially wrong for both scientific AND theological reasons. However, as recent history clearly shows, BioLogos's "diplomatic" efforts have been utterly fruitless.

Yup; that had train wreck written all over it right from the beginning. It is probably not too surprising that BioLogos could not see it coming. Their church doctrines derive from pretty much the same backgrounds. This is really religious warfare over territory and market share; and the hardliners at DI and the other ICR spin-offs are clearly not going to compromise with "another religion." One might guess that there will be a variety of other kinds of internal crises within other denominations eventually over the coming years. But I would suggest that is not something the NCSE needs to be concerned about. If the NCSE can be effective in getting an understanding of evolution into society, that will be a big accomplishment in itself. People within various religious communities cannot be expected to start evolving their understanding of religion without a decent education about the facts and the theory of evolution. Somehow that education has to take place first. Then we just have to trust that time and the changing of generations will begin working it out. The most urgent objective at the moment is to remove the stranglehold of authoritarian fundamentalism on education and public policy in large sections of the country. It’s not going to happen over night, and these tyrants are not about to let go until it becomes too painful for them to hang on. And the NCSE has done a pretty good job of inflicting pain where it needs to be inflicted. We should support that.

eric said:

H.H. said: Yes, in fact I can seriously expect the NCSE to acknowledge my views with the same seriousness they they acknowledge views which run contrary to mine. Or neither, as I've previously advocated. That is, of course, if the NCSE is actually serious about maintaining neutrality.

Ah, I think it comes down to you and I having a different concept of religious neutrality. I think of it as neither supporting nor refuting any particular belief about God. You appear to be using it to mean equal outreach messaging to religious and non-religious groups. The NCSE mission is about educating people about science. They therefore target their message towards the people who need the education. I do not expect them to create an equal number of messages for the well-science-educated and the poorly-science-educated groups just to appeal to my sense of balance. I do not expect literacy programs to target the already-literate, either. So, if, what you mean by neutral is "they should target atheists as often as they target believers" then you're right, their messaging isn't neutral. But then again, atheists aren't where the miseducation is. So why the hell would you ever WANT them to waste their time messaging to you? Just to stroke your ego? They neither support nor refute any particular belief about God. That's religiously neutral. If they put their resources in to trying to reach only those groups who have a poor science education, and you aren't one of those groups, my suggestion is: quit complaining longe enough to realize you should be happy about the fact that they don't think your group needs remedial training.

H.H. said:

eric said: So, just to be clear, your argument here is no mention = attack. Have I got that right?

No. The argument is that promoting only a single viewpoint is the same as advocating for that viewpoint at the expense of all others. Is that really so difficult to understand as you're letting on?

I find myself more in agreement with your view than with Ken’s, and have criticized him for embracing his weak version of the anthropic principle. However,having said this, those who still mock Ken for his religious views - and especially those who regard him as a “creationist” - are ignoring his decades-long work as a stout defender of the teaching of evolution and as a stern critic of scientific creationism, especially of Intelligent Design...

— John Kwok

Don't know if it's of interest, but I tried posting on Jerry Coyne's blog a while ago and my comments were never approved. I was asking about Dr. David Heddle being banned from his site. It initiated at Biologos where anothe commenter posted an inquiry at Coyne's blog. There was no response. If anyone's interested I'll dig out a link.

Alan Fox said: Don't know if it's of interest, but I tried posting on Jerry Coyne's blog a while ago and my comments were never approved. I was asking about Dr. David Heddle being banned from his site. It initiated at Biologos where anothe commenter posted an inquiry at Coyne's blog. There was no response. If anyone's interested I'll dig out a link.

One of the tasks of the NCSE is to counter the arguments used to block teaching science. A prominent one is that "Darwinism" causes atheism.

The people that believe this are the extremists on both sides- Jonathan Sarfati and Jerry Coyne are singing in the same choir on that issue. They both insist that evolution=atheism. As this is both untrue, and is used to oppose science education in the USA, it is entirely appropriate that NSCE counters the argument.

What the evangelical creationists, and evangelical atheists are uncomfortable with is that they are fundamentally in agreement about something. NSCE is not promoting any religion. They are refuting a false argument regarding faith and science.

wikipedia: Excerpts: United States Murders In the U.S., violence directed toward abortion providers has killed at least eight people, including four doctors, two clinic employees, a security guard, and a clinic escort.[5][6] [edit] Attempted murder, assault, and kidnapping According to statistics gathered by the National Abortion Federation (NAF), an organization of abortion providers, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, there have been 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, and 3 kidnappings committed against abortion providers. Arson, bombing, and property crime According to NAF, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs").[9] The New York Times also cites over one hundred clinic bombings and incidents of arson, over three hundred invasions, and over four hundred incidents of vandalism between 1978 and 1993.[14] The first clinic arson occurred in Oregon in March 1976 and the first bombing occurred in February 1978 in Ohio.[15] More recent incidents have included:[5]

If anyone has more info add it. Also feel free to borrow or steal the list. I thought I'd post all the firings of professors and state officials for teaching or accepting evolution. 2 professors fired, Bitterman (SW CC Iowa) and Bolyanatz (Wheaton) 1 persecuted unmercifully Richard Colling (Olivet) Now: forced to resign 1 persecuted unmercifully for 4 years Van Till (Calvin) 1 attempted firing Murphy (Fuller Theological by Phillip Johnson IDist) 1 successful death threats, assaults harrasment Gwen Pearson (UT Permian) 1 state official fired Chris Comer (Texas) 1 assault, fired from dept. Chair Paul Mirecki (U. of Kansas) 1 killed, Rudi Boa, Biomedical Student (Scotland) Death Threats Eric Pianka UT Austin and the Texas Academy of Science engineered by a hostile, bizarre IDist named Bill Dembski Death Threats Michael Korn, fugitive from justice, towards the UC Boulder biology department and miscellaneous evolutionary biologists. Death Threats Judge Jones Dover trial. He was under federal marshall protection for a while

raven said: A thorough accounting would take pages and pages. In my own field, every once in a while an MD is assassinated by xian terrorists. We are up to 8 dead, 17 attempted murders, and over 200 wounded. During the height of the Bush disaster, roughly one family planning clinic was being blown up or burned down every month.

Robin said:

H.H. said:

eric said: So, just to be clear, your argument here is no mention = attack. Have I got that right?

No. The argument is that promoting only a single viewpoint is the same as advocating for that viewpoint at the expense of all others. Is that really so difficult to understand as you're letting on?

Just curious H.H., but per my previous comment, since when is atheism a "religious viewpoint"? Is not actually the exact opposite - the total lack of a religious viewpoint?

Robin said: ...since when is atheism a "religious viewpoint"? Is not actually the exact opposite - the total lack of a religious viewpoint?

Frank J said: I give him some slack on the WAP because he takes pains in "Finding Darwin's God" to note that his ideas on quantum indeterminacy (the "infinite gaps", if you will) are only personal speculation, not testable statements like the DI claims for finding the unnamed designer in gaps that they admit are shrinking.

Frank J said: It especially annoys me when he is considered a "creationist" because it makes it easy for IDers to pull their bait-and-switch on several definitions of "creationism" to fool more or the public. As I have been complaining for years, we - and I mean defenders of any science, not just of evolution - do not have the luxury to use multiple definitions. Whatever definition we use for "creationism" we must stick to it, and expose any IDer who pulls the bait and switch. Not just retort with "ID is too creationism." If we must use "creationism" to mean the anti-evolution movement in any form, we must frame it as a strategy to mislead, not a "belief system." In that case, Miller is as far from "creationist" as one can get.

raven said: Eric, this will get you started. Google and wikipedia work, use them. The list of scientists and science supporters fired or harassed is out of date. It also doesn't include high school science teachers. They are frequently fired, or harassed into quiting in the south central USA but no one keeps statistics.

J.J.E. said: If the NCSE persists in siding with a faction I disagree with, I think it is eminently reasonable to withhold my support of them. If not for this disingenuous bit of pandering, I'd be an enthusiastic supporter. http://hillcountrydilettante.blogspot.com/

Gary Hurd: One of the tasks of the NCSE is to counter the arguments used to block teaching science. A prominent one is that “Darwinism” causes atheism.

BTW I believe Jerry Coyne and PZ Myers are still, like yours truly, members of NCSE. If they can still be members of NCSE, then what's your excuse?

John Kwok said: It REALLY PISSES ME OFF when people call Ken a "creationist"

harold said: Now here is my very staightforward point again. I must request that you directly copy and paste it... 1) The theory of evolution has no religious content. 2) The theory of evolution contradicts everything that is contradicted by the theory of evolution, and nothing more. That includes but is not limited to some religious dogma.

It is my impression that they are describing the fact that some religious sects don't dispute the theory of evolution.

I also strongly support the right of anyone to choose any religion they want, as long as they don't interfere with my rights. There is no conflict here. I respect their autonomy, even though I would personally prefer that they behave in a certain way.

Larry Boy said: In a broad sense, asserting that a belief in God is compatible with evolution doesn't promote a belief in God, but rather promotes more rational beliefs among those who already believe in God. This is an important distinction to make.

Gary Hurd said: One of the tasks of the NCSE is to counter the arguments used to block teaching science. A prominent one is that "Darwinism" causes atheism. The people that believe this are the extremists on both sides- Jonathan Sarfati and Jerry Coyne are singing in the same choir on that issue. They both insist that evolution=atheism.

John Kwok said: Are you prepared to do this even if it meant allowing science denialists the right to control the future of scienc education in the United States: You may not appreciate how NCSE is waging war against science denialists, but do not lose sight of this (Regrettably, I believe you, Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers, and others have done just that.).

Bobsie said: However, in making a point to his audience, Ken has on occasion referred to himself as a "creationist" albeit with a twist to it's common connotation.

Obviously you lost sight what I told H. H. It bears repeating.

Does your hostility toward NCSE's so-called "promotion" of this particular webcast series is one you should retain if the ultimate result might mean that science denialists will have the right to determine the future course of science education in the United States? If so, then your condemnation of NCSE is ridiculous and completely unwarranted.

As I also noted to H. H., apparently both PZ Myers and Jerry Coyne are still NCSE members, and, to his credit, PZ apparently still urges people to join NCSE. What then, is your excuse?

Argh said: Do you see any difference between the claim that evolution causes atheism and evolution=atheism?

John Kwok said: And yes, I am well aware of that, but it's only for that reason where it is legitimate:

Bobsie said: However, in making a point to his audience, Ken has on occasion referred to himself as a "creationist" albeit with a twist to it's common connotation.

When others such as PZ Myers and Jerry Coyne have used that term, it has been to smear Ken and to assert - however ludicrously - that Ken's ideas are no better than those of the creos. And that's what DOES PISS ME OFF. Myers in particular has no right to judge since he doesn't have anywhere remotely the track record that Ken has had (Especially since where it not for Pharyngula, I honestly doubt no one would even care who Myers is.).

John Kwok said: Does your hostility toward NCSE's so-called "promotion" of this particular webcast series is one you should retain if the ultimate result might mean that science denialists will have the right to determine the future course of science education in the United States?

Stanton said:

Robin said: ...since when is atheism a "religious viewpoint"? Is not actually the exact opposite - the total lack of a religious viewpoint?

Arguing that atheism is a religious viewpoint is tantamount to demanding that "bald" is a hair color, that "off" is a tv-station, or that "I have no car" is a brand of car.

Gary Hurd said: One of the tasks of the NCSE is to counter the arguments used to block teaching science. A prominent one is that "Darwinism" causes atheism. The people that believe this are the extremists on both sides- Jonathan Sarfati and Jerry Coyne are singing in the same choir on that issue. They both insist that evolution=atheism. As this is both untrue, and is used to oppose science education in the USA, it is entirely appropriate that NSCE counters the argument. What the evangelical creationists, and evangelical atheists are uncomfortable with is that they are fundamentally in agreement about something. NSCE is not promoting any religion. They are refuting a false argument regarding faith and science.

Argh said: My impression is that they extensively describe how some religious sects reconcile religion and the theory of evolution, and how that makes more sense than other interpretations.

Argh said: Meanwhile, to run interference for organizations like the NCSE when they promote religious viewpoints as a way of furthering science (in violation of their charters), accommodationists like the commenters on this thread deny that they are in fact promoting religious viewpoints.

Robin said: since when is atheism a "religious viewpoint"? Is not actually the exact opposite - the total lack of a religious viewpoint?

Argh said:

John Kwok said: Does your hostility toward NCSE's so-called "promotion" of this particular webcast series is one you should retain if the ultimate result might mean that science denialists will have the right to determine the future course of science education in the United States?

I have expressed opposition to the NCSE's lying about it, not to their doing it, so your comment mises the mark. Likewise to your (ironically) simplistic division of the world into oppositional camps; it's remarkable that people such as you who argue that the NCSE should violate its charter to buttress moderate religion keep arguing that it isn't in fact doing so. Coyne points out that the NCSE is promoting religion, and he gets piled on from accommodationists who reflexively oppose what he says regarding how to handle creationism and religion. Those accommodationists refuse to concede that Coyne could be right about anything having to do with science's interface with religious moderates. He is right: the NCSE has articles from its religious outreach director containing such gems as "The Bible reflects the specific pre-scientific world-view of the ancient Hebrew people," and "Like color and shape, "creation" and "evolution" do not occupy competing categories, but are complementary ways of looking at the universe." There is also a limit to how much we can credit the neutrality of someone couching religious arguments by saying "Some biblical scholars believe X." Were a public school to merely teach objective facts about what some religious people believe with the same relentless focus the NCSE does, it would amount to an unconstitutional endorsement of a particular religious approach. This is despite the fact that there is a place in public schools for learning facts about religion, e.g. Joseph Smith lived in the first half of the 19th century. Coyne is right about what is happening, and the accommodationists are wrong. They need to shape up and acknowledge someone with whom they disagree can be right so we can discuss how best to handle it. I have far more appreciation for the accommodationist position than you assume-though I have more respect for the intellectual honesty of the average uncompromising new atheist than for the dishonesty of the average accommodationist.

Argh said: I have expressed opposition to the NCSE's lying about it, not to their doing it, so your comment mises the mark. Likewise to your (ironically) simplistic division of the world into oppositional camps; it's remarkable that people such as you who argue that the NCSE should violate its charter to buttress moderate religion keep arguing that it isn't in fact doing so.

Argh, it isn't worth the effort to respond. When relatively mild criticisms of the charter of a nonprofit organization made by those that are nevertheless still members is compared to the Spanish Inquisition and to McCarthyism, you know you are dealing with someone arguing with less than full honesty. Either that or the person is a few suits short of a full deck.

Yeah, that's way over the top. This thread seems to be degenerating, so I'll close comments.