UPDATE: This thread has grown bloated and full of unproductive back and forth, so please post ONLY if you want to sign the letter. I am deleting all other comments after this announcment. Thanks for your indulgence.
When is The Chronicle of Higher Education going to put the kibosh on the irrelevant and incoherent tirades of Gnu-Bashers like Michael Ruse and Jacques Berlinerblau, whose continual attacks on atheists don’t do the journal any good? But in the meantime, one person still mans the Gnu Barricades: David Barash. Barash, a biologist at the University of Washington, has posted his latest on Tuesday, “The emperor’s new nakedness.” Taking his fellow Chronicle “bloggers” to task, he points out what’s really new in New Atheists: their popularity and their unwillingness to respect religious claims (on a related note, read Jason Rosenhouse’s epic new post on atheist “incivility”)
We have a curious compact of silence here in the United States, or at least we did prior to the arising of the New Atheists. Were someone to announce a blatant absurdity (the Earth is flat, she has been abducted and inseminated by space aliens, etc.), she would be subjected to extreme doubt, often scorn. But claim that Mohammed ascended to heaven on the back of a winged horse, or that Jesus did so without a comparable equine assist, and you must be respected. Why? Because it’s your religion. That settles it.
How impertinent of those New Atheists to treat such claims with skepticism! How disrespectful to suggest that religious claims can and should be scrutinized just like any other pronouncements! How uncouth to speak of these things in anything other than a knowing and admiring whisper!
Thus, it is somehow naïve to point out that there is no evidence whatever for the existence of a soul, immortal or otherwise, that nearly every supposed factual claim in the Bible is either unverifiable or verifiably ridiculous, on a par with the Tibetan Buddhist insistence that the head of the embalmed body of the 13th Dalai Lama, which had been facing south-east, had suddenly and mysteriously turned to face the northeast, thereby pointing to the direction in which his successor (the 14th and current Dalai Lama) would be found. And so forth.
To point out such absurdities is, once again, to be “naïve,” crass, or ill-bred. Such people, we are told, should leave high-falutin’ theologically meaningful analyses to those who best understand them, who know the Magic Abracadabra and have plumbed the Mysteries. They should join the crowd, speak only in hushed tones, and, if they cannot bring themselves to admire the Emperor’s finery, at least have the good manners to keep quiet.
On the big “Nick Matzke = Tom Johnson” thread the other day, a fellow named Roger Stanyard came over to complain. He is spokesperson for the British Centre for Science Education (BCSE), the UK equivalent of our National Center for Science Education (NCSE); both organizations are worthy endeavors. But Stanyard immediately alienated everyone by telling us to lay off not only Nick Matzke (who accused Richard Dawkins of playing the “Nazi card”), but religion in general. It’s the usual argument that any vociferous atheism turns people away from science. I responded to Stanyard, saying in part (I put the identical post on the Dawkins website, where Stanyard is trolling as well):
So are you asking the rest of us atheists, who oppose creationism as well, to just shut up about religion?
Or do you think the battle against creationism is so much more important than the one against the pernicious effects of religion that we should concentrate on the former and simply keep our mouths shut about the latter? You realize, of course, that creationism will never go away until religion does. I know of only a single creationist (David Berlinski) who isn’t motivated by religious faith.
If you’d read my popular book promoting evolution (WEIT), you’ll see that I say virtually nothing about religion.
I’d suggest, then, that you lay off telling us what to do until you’ve read about our goals. The fact is that we’ll always be fighting creationism until religion goes away, and when it does the fight will be over, as it is in Scandinavia.
Stanyard has not responded, preferring instead to yammer on endlessly about somebody who compared Matzke to “vermin”. That was an unfortunate remark—the kind of name calling I don’t like on this site, but Stanyard glommed onto it like white on rice, or Kwok on a Leica. Like Matzke and others, Stanyard prefers to drone about tone, and won’t engage the worthy argument that creationism is one battle and religion another, that the two battles are connected, and you won’t win the first until you win the second.
The strangest thing in all this, though, is Stanyard’s claim that we should lay off religion because “You’ll lose a pile of allies.” Yet that’s exactly what he’s done with his own invective on this site and Richard’s. So let me just pen this:
Open letter to the NCSE and BCSE
Dear comrades:
Although we may diverge in our philosophies and actions toward religion, we share a common goal: the promulgation of good science education in Britain and America—indeed, throughout the world. Many of us, like myself and Richard Dawkins, spend a lot of time teaching evolution to the general public. There’s little doubt, in fact, that Dawkins is the preeminent teacher of evolution in the world. He has not only turned many people on to modern evolutionary biology, but has converted many evolution-deniers (most of them religious) to evolution-accepters.
Nevertheless, your employees, present and former, have chosen to spend much of their time battling not creationists, but evolutionists who happen to be atheists. This apparently comes from your idea that if evolutionists also espouse atheism, it will hurt the cause of science education and turn people away from evolution. I think this is misguided for several reasons, including a complete lack of evidence that your idea is true, but also your apparent failure to recognize that creationism is a symptom of religion (and not just fundamentalist religion), and will be with us until faith disappears. That is one reason—and, given the pernicious effect of religion, a minor one—for the fact that we choose to fight on both fronts.
The official policy of your organizations—certainly of the NCSE—is apparently to cozy up to religion. You have “faith projects,” you constantly tell us to shut up about religion, and you even espouse a kind of theology which claims that faith and science are compatible. Clearly you are going to continue with these activities, for you’ve done nothing to change them in the face of criticism. And your employees, past and present, will continue to heap invective on New Atheists and tar people like Richard Dawkins with undeserved opprobrium.
We will continue to answer the misguided attacks by people like Josh Rosenau, Roger Stanyard, and Nick Matzke so long as they keep mounting those attacks. I don’t expect them to abate, but I’d like your organizations to recognize this: you have lost many allies, including some prominent ones, in your attacks on atheism. And I doubt that those attacks have converted many Christians or Muslims to the cause of evolution. This is a shame, because we all recognize that the NCSE has done some great things in the past and, I hope, will—like the new BCSE—continue do great things in the future.
There is a double irony in this situation. First, your repeated and strong accusations that, by criticizing religion, atheists are alienating our pro-evolution allies (liberal Christians), has precisely the same alienating effect on your allies: scientists who are atheists. Second, your assertion that only you have the requisite communication skills to promote evolution is belied by the observation that you have, by your own ham-handed communications, alienated many people who are on the side of good science and evolution. You have lost your natural allies. And this is not just speculation, for those allies were us, and we’re telling you so.
Sincerely,
Jerry Coyne
Feel free to “cosign” this letter by giving your real name in the comments. And any reader who has advice for the NCSE or BCSE, please add it in the comments below. Please be constructive. History tells me that they’re not going to listen to us, but it’s worth a try.
Roger Stanyard wrote: “I find it somewhat strange that the New Atheists are calling for a change in our direction when, some five years ago (when we first started), Richard Dawkins let it be known to us that his support was conditional on us not attacking religion.”
Richard Dawkins wrote:
“Please substantiate this statement. I find it impossible to believe that I could possibly ever have said anything so diametrically opposed to opinions that I have held for many years. I am struggling to be charitable and put it down to honest misunderstanding on Stanyard’s part. And failing in my struggle.”
Roger Stanyard replied:
“It’s what I was told by Larry Moran; IIRC about October/November 2007 at a meetup at the NHM in London. PZ Myers was there at the time but I don’t think he knew about it.
If I recall correctly, Larry went on to meet you afterwards but I don’t know if he told you we had agreed on that route anyway.
I have stated what I recall from the event, Richard. That’s the best I can do.”
Larry Moran wrote:
“Roger, I don’t recall saying any such thing to you. I recall saying that Dawkins would probably welcome a British version of NCSE and I recall cautioning you NOT to attack your fellow ATHEISTS or coddle theists.”
Thank you, Larry, for confirming my suspicion that Roger Stanyard, like Nick Matzke, makes stuff up to suit his agenda. As it happens, both made stuff up about me, which annoyed me so I must be careful not to get too personal.
BUT, I do want to say this. There is a real risk that NCSE, which has done truly superb work under the admirable Eugenie Scott, may unjustly be tarred with the brush of association with a pair of self-promoting fools (to be kind and refrain from calling them liars). Nick Matzke has not worked for NCSE for several years now. And BCSE, despite the similar name, is not the same organisation as NCSE: as I understand it, the connection is tenuous or even non-existent.
I think it would be a tragedy if Genie’s sterling work with her team at NCSE were to be undermined because of a pair of buffoons over whom she has no control. I suspect that Genie herself would have little difficulty in accepting Jerry’s open letter, which many of us have cosigned.
Richard
“I suspect that Genie herself would have little difficulty in accepting Jerry’s open letter….”
In the sense that she might withdraw and open the letter from the inbox, I have no doubt. Whether she would “accept” it on its merits… I’m not so sure.
Dr. Dawkins said he “suspects.” Whom are you not so “sure” as?
That’s stretching a bit to criticise, isn’t it? Arabiflora is less sure that Eugenie would accept the letter on its merits than he is sure that she would withdraw and open the letter. He’s comparing two possibilities, not two people.
I’ll stand by my criticism. Of course Scott would open a letter she found in her mailbox. It doesn’t take a leap of faith to be confident about that.
If Arabiflora meant that she suspected Scott might not agree, she could have just said that, rather than making an implication that Dr. Dawkins hadn’t already allowed for the possibility she might not. Maybe that implication was not intentional, but it’s there.
A more important issue I could take with Arabiflora’s post is its negative connotation about Eugenie Scott, without any substantiation. Is there a reason Arabiflora thinks Scott wouldn’t agree, based on Scott’s statements or actions? I’d be interested to hear. When I heard her interviewed I think on NPR a fairly long while ago, I thought she was not accommodationist, and I have been attuned to accommodationism since long before the recent series of kerfuffles. So it has and does seem incongruous and disheartening that NCSE is actively pursuing accommodationist policies in spite of having Scott at the helm. Perhaps that’s the implication Arabiflora wanted to make. If so, “I suspect not,” would have been a way to do it without a (perhaps unintentional) misrepresentation of what Dr. Dawkins said.
Paul wrote: “If Arabiflora meant that she suspected Scott might not agree, she could have just said that, rather than making an implication that Dr. Dawkins hadn’t already allowed for the possibility she might not.”
*stagewhisper* That’s what she actually said. Try rereading the first sentence.
um, the first sentence is quoting Dr. Dawkins. Notice the quotation marks.
It seems clear that Nick Matzke is simply using a different definition of “playing the Nazi card.” He seems to believe that showing a picture which juxtaposes Nazis with churchgoers in itself constitutes playing the card, regardless of the intent or context.
We can certainly disagree with Matzke on this point, but that’s as far as it goes. It just seems so unlikely that Matzke is actually, consciously lying.
Dialogue can escalate very quickly based on mismatching underlying assumptions, a.k.a misunderstandings. There was a recent TED talk that mentions this phenomenon. http://www.ted.com/talks/kathryn_schulz_on_being_wrong.html
I agree. Instead of thinking of it as lying, I would concur with how I believe Russel Blackford characterized it: intelectually lazy. Matzke’s defenition of “playing the nazi card,” to the extent that he has defined it, is so broad as to preclude any discussion of the connection between Naziism and religion or the religious impulse. I would also add that Matzke’s use of the phrase appears to me to be self-serving, in that he seems to allow the phrase whatever dimensions it needs to support the conclusions he wishes to reach.
This may be true, but he used this definition as evidence to support his ranting straw man claims about supposed “gnu atheists” hurting the cause.
Recall that the claim about Richard “playing the Nazi card” was in response to someone asking Nick to show evidence for his rant about gnu atheists engaging in the following:
1. They “rain hot death” on people for “real and imagined” things “all the time.”
2. They lead discussions by calling people “stupid liers [sic] whose religion is also a lie and by the way there’s no God, no objective meaning to life, and if you think otherwise then science is against you, it’s a package deal and you have to accept all that if you accept evolution/global warming”
3. They purposely provoke defensive reactions.
From an outsider’s perspective it sure looks like he confirmed his biases with a self-serving false memory which doesn’t support any of his original straw men in the first place! Like Mooney, Nick used false information to shore up bigoted misinformation while admonishing others to use “science” to support anything they had to say in return!
Oh, and then he gave a notpology and kept digging the hole further by muddying the waters.
It’s a bit ironic when the self-appointed experts on science communication are so poor at backing up their own claims with science as well as being such poor communicators. Given these flaws, it would do them well to learn the art of a sincere apology. Heck, it might even further the science education they claim to be so interested in.
It’s tedious to hear Nick et. al. telling those who are better at both science and communication how they’re doing it “wrong” when they have no evidence that their way is “right”– just a gut feeling, false memories, and bias confirming anecdotes that don’t check out.
We’d like to see the “science” that shows that this sort of religious coddling/atheist bashing furthers the science education at all. If the accommodationists can’t provide it, then we request they keep their misinformation, bigotry, and delusions to themselves. Can’t they promote science education without coddling religion or bashing those who find religion at odds with “science education”?
btw, it was a good video clip!
I am always impressed how Richard, in spite of the constant character maligning his name is subject to, responds to these kinds of accusations: with candour, refreshing honesty, and consideration for others. If this is gnu atheist militancy and stridency in action, then by what meaningful words do we describe the tone of the pope blaming the holocaust on atheist secularists?
No science organizations should take any stand on promoting or accommodating religious beliefs but ignore the claims entirely: when oogity boogity enters a scientific discussion as a welcomed guest, then the topic has already changed.
I cosign this letter.
Brad Belchamber OCT
Ontario, Canada.
“I am always impressed how Richard, in spite of the constant character maligning his name is subject to, responds to these kinds of accusations: with candour, refreshing honesty, and consideration for others.”
Like accusing me of lying, and going after my old place of employment?
But ya are, Blanche, ya area liar. And you have the temerity to characterize being called out on it as more uncivil than your own behavior.
“Going after” your old place of employment? Grab me a fainting couch, stat! There shall be no differences of opinion or criticism evah!
“Going after your old place of employment?” GOING AFTER? Here is what I said, and I hardly can imagine how it could be more complimentary to your old place of employment:
“There is a real risk that NCSE, which has done truly superb work under the admirable Eugenie Scott, may unjustly be tarred with the brush of association with a pair of self-promoting fools (to be kind and refrain from calling them liars).”
Richard
So you should refrain from calling me a liar.
Otherwise it’s the third time you have libelled me here.
You do realize Richard was addressing Nick Matzke, not you, don’t you Roger? Or are you completely incapable of reading plainly written prose?
based on what he has posted here, Roger is incapable of not only correctly READING prose, but evidently can’t correctly process what people tell him in person, either; according to Larry Moran.
Roger evidently has some… issues…
Mr. Stanyard, sir, this is just getting silly.
Do we really need to become hyper-pedantic and to start parsing the various meanings of ‘to lie’ and ‘libel’? That would be productive for nobody.
Would it not be wise just to admit that you misspoke — rather badly — and that your continued protestation to the contrary have made the situation worse, not better?
It is certainly natural to become defensive when attacked, but that says nothing about the accuracy nor of the justification for that attack. Dwell not on those who continue to press the case and simply acknowledge your error.
I should have clarified: proper consideration.
So, yes Nick, I do indeed think it is justified that I admire Richard’s judicious use of proper consideration and politeness, which leads him to write Thank you, Larry, for confirming my suspicion that Roger Stanyard, like Nick Matzke, makes stuff up…, and of paying proper consideration to the NCSE, which has done truly superb work under the admirable Eugenie Scott, but who should not be held to unjustly be tarred with the brush of association with a pair of self-promoting fools.
I think that’s honest candour framed with proper consideration. Don’t you? Or do you really want to remain an example of how to be churlish?
No. It’s bloody nasty.
Oh, Roger, ffs get a grip, mate. You’ve stated on a public forum that Richard Dawkins said he’d support your organisation on condition that you didn’t attack religion! You must have known how utterly inconcievable that is. I’m no fan of Dawkins these days myself, but, I mean, to make such a claim about him…that’s just …er…weird. If there is one claim about Dawkins that is, quite literally, unbelievable, it is yours.
Why don’t you just apologise now and end the thing before it gets any worse for you.
“Bloody nasty.”
As opposed to your exemplary displays of coolheadedness and adherence to fact?
Nick, you’re a wanker.
what more needs be said at this point?
You are a liar, Matzke. You’ve demonstrated it, over and over.
Sit down and shut up. You’ve become tedious.
From an outsider’s perspective you seem terribly jealous of Richard Dawkins and intent on ruining his reputation along with everybody else who refuses to bow to religious privilege– even if you have to make things up about the entire group.
Your biases have blinded you to your own bigotry.
This all started because of your pre-emptive defense of Chris Mooney is which you nastily implied that gnu atheists do all sorts of nefarious things like “lead discussions by calling people stupid liers [sic]” … (and saying things to them like:)”by the way there’s no God, no objective meaning to life, and if you think otherwise then science is against you, it’s a package deal and you have to accept all that if you accept evolution/global warming” (as if anyone actually does this anywhere other than in your imagination.)
And when a rational person asked, “Who does that Nick?”– you said (read carefully now): “I have seen Richard Dawkins address large general audiences (plural) and quite deliberately (!), but ridiculously (!), play the Nazi card (!)against religion. It’s an instance of Godwin’s Law (!), and it’s no better when Dawkins does it than when anyone else does it.” (patting yourself on the back for being so fair minded, eh?)
I think the whole shebang is libelous, myself– but I’ve come to expect as much from you and your ilk.
In any case, your comments about Richard do not support what it was supposed to support (nefarious atheists getting in peoples faces) AND it is a lie (or certainly can be construed as one –or several) AND instead of apologizing you just dug deeper and got uglier and more Kwokish and increasingly ridiculous and dishonest. Nothing was as you characterized it. It just that, like other faitheists, you have a desperate need to find thing wrong with those who don’t have “faith in faith” like you do.
You deserve everything you got in return and more. You are not the victim here.
I signed above under some comments by Roger Stanyard. I think he is wrong to not see the threats posed to rational education in the UK by ‘people of faith’.
On a lighter not it was funny to see the names beneath the pseudonyms, but I will now forget them of course. I wanted to be Dom the Obscure as that was my nickname because I was a/ obscure & b/ a stonemason. I could now add c/ later did a degree. I even worked on a arch for All Souls College Oxford – not that I have one! 🙂
… a soul or an arch. 😉
But no children who hanged themselves because they were too many, I hope!
Ophelia Benson
Your literary allusion above gives me another reason to celebrate the fact that I chose literature as my major.
Now I have read more science books.
I suspect a Malthusian or Dickens (Christmas Carol) allusion lurks within the Hardy but I cannot recall!
It’s an incident in the novel. The oldest child left a note – “Because we are too many.” (Maybe “too menny” – I can’t remember if he went for the pathos of childish spelling or not.)
Sadly still single! No one will have me!
😉
Is that what they call an obscure reference?
In my case I am fortunate that I do have a sole, but I no longer have an arch. Or so says my podiatrist.
I am happy to be a signer of this letter. I have frequently contributed to NCSE, but future contributions depend on their actions with respect to this issue.
Joseph O. Bussen, Hawaii
A fine letter, wise and noble of you to frame the current debate so clearly and succinctly. Hopefully it will lead to better understanding and less philosophical clashes, hopefully less philosophy as well 😉
I am honored to cosign this letter.
Andrew Masters
Toronto, Ontario
I am an ecologist working at a European University – and I see the ugly head of religion-mediated science denial creeping out from little cracks everywhere, even over here in ‘liberal Europe’. It must be fought by those who know better, for the sake of the next generations to come.
I support and co-sign the letter in its entirety; well done, Coyne.
I always use my real name. Anyway:
As a South African my concerns with religious conflict with science involve American evangelical church’s setting forth to my country and advertising to my people that they can go to a special camp where the evangelicals will pray the AIDS away.
These groups are lent credibility by organisations such as the NCSE who seem to think the only aspect of American religion that matters is evolution denial, when in fact there are much wider, much more pernicious effects within American faith.
In Uganda, Freethought Kampala is doing its bit to counter-act what is largely religion based belief in witch-craft, bringing information on mass hysteria into the equation.
The NCSE however refuses to act on what is largely American driven religion and the harm it is doing to the continent I live on.
By aiming to silence criticisms of such within America’s scientific community the NCSE has failed to discredit such actions.
Bruce, I didn’t realize your real name was Anyway. Maybe we’re related.
Die Anyway
I agree whole-heartedly with the Open letter to the NCSE and BCSE.
Co-signing
Nathan David Teegarden
Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA
This Pierre L. A. Jönsson approves of this message.
As for suggestions, surely a reduction in the most blatant forms of hypocrisy could be useful.
I, Bob Terrace, Chelmsford, MA, agree with Jerry Coyne’s message and proudly co-sign
“I know of only a single creationist (David Berlinski) who isn’t motivated by religious faith.”
How can you know what motivates a pathological liar?
It would be more accurate to say “I don’t know any creationist who isn’t motivated by religious faith.” I suggest leave subhumans like Berlinski out of it.
“But Stanyard immediately alienated everyone by telling us to lay off not only Nick Matzke (who accused Richard Dawkins of playing the “Nazi card”), but religion in general.”
People like Stanyard are as morally corrupt as the Bible thumpers and the terrorists they suck up to.
I thoroughly support Jerry’s letter. The aims of such organisations should be to support and promote science, not to attack others who have the same aims but differ in their position with regards to religion.
The promotion of science education should not involve the promotion of religion or public attacks on atheists.
Steve Zara
Coventry, UK.
‘Feel free to “cosign” this letter by giving your real name in the comments.’
If Canadians can sign, count me in:
Veronica Abbass
Ontario, Canada
“If Canadians can sign, count me in:”
The picture on my $20 dollar bill says that I should not have any scrupulous hesitation to co-sign Jerry’s letter…..at least the BCSE part of it.
So count me sign in:
Yvon Roussel. N.B. Canada
Which picture?
The Queen of course.
Count me in as a cosigner to Jerry’s letter. We need to draw the line and get anything that resembles accommodation out of organizations that are there to support science education.
Steve Gray
Surrey, BC, Canada
I wholeheartedly support Jerry’s Open letter to the NCSE and BCSE.
F. Andy Seidl
Ann Arbor, MI
I am privileged to add my name to this letter.
George Andrews, Leicester, UK.
I co-sign this letter.
Austin, TX
Roger Stanyard says
“When are you going to get it into your thick skull that the United Kingdom is not the United States.”
Moreover, Canada is neither. I signed Jerry Coyne’s letter because I don’t want yours and others accommodationist stance to leak to Canada anymore than it already has.
I, Daniel Kretchmar, agree with Jerry Coyne’s message and proudly co-sign
Neil Erickson
Victoria, BC, Canada
Were it not for my job in Washington, DC, I would gladly sign this letter with my real name. Still, I want it to be known that the sentiments herein are widely supported.
I’m sure this will get lost in the sea of excellent comments already on this thread, but I want to ask the likes of Stanyard and Matzke to answer two specific questions. At the very least, doing so will clear up exactly where Gnus disagree with their position:
(1) Are scientists ever allowed to criticize religion in public?
(2) When religion makes irrational claims or causes people to act irrationally, may scientists point that out?
I suspect — though I am open to being proven wrong — that Gnus answer, “Yes and yes,” while Accommodationists answer, “No and no.” All the discussion of tone and method fall away once that stark contrast is acknowledged.
I just passed through your [Paine] home town – Thetford – this afternoon! Good choice of person – ‘My country is the world & my religion is to do good’!
@Dominic
Thank you. I endeavor to do my namesake proud.
I see your Paine-ism, and raise you, “If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.”
He was a good bloke.
I, too, strongly support the sentiments in Jerry’s letter—but I, too, am unable (for similar reasons to “Tom’s”) to discard pseudonymity to say so.
Sorry.
I, Rodd Garoutte of Norwood, Colorado, also highly support Jerry’s open letter.
The New Atheist are a response to decades, no centuries, of irrational faith; it is not an attack. If they want to be left alone then stop (trying to )inject religion into the science classroom, stop trying to rewrite history to show a Christian-centric point of view and stop treating women as second class citizens. Until then, game on.
Kriss
“… the dichotomous view represented by creationists and antireligious atheists leaves out a large range of more moderate religious views….”
http://ncse.com/religion
This appears to suggests the existence of pro-religious atheists who presumably are part of the large range of more moderate religious views? Anyone seen one’a’them?
I think you can find them if you look for past Templeton winners.
Thaddeus Michael Aid soon to be BSc and soon to be D.Phil student at the University of Oxford
My comments are at http://www.scienceandatheism.com/2011/04/24/jerry-coynes-open-letter-to-the-ncse/
Getting the public to appreciate and understand science is, in essence, convincing the public to use their brains to test beliefs against external evidence. We cannot promote science education and at the same time accept superstition as a legitimate guide to decision-making. We are hypocrites if we do this.
I gladly sign your letter,
Lou Jost
Genetics/ecology
I cosign Jerry’s letter with my real name.
It seems to me that this is simple thing. Dawkens is happy to admit the Ken Miller is on his side of the science education debate and vice versa. Yet they both hold nothing back on the god question. Moreover they both sensibly agree that NCSE or something like it should exist and not take sides. So why don’t they do that?
As an old “New Atheist” I entirely concur with Jerry Coyne’s Open letter to the NCSE and BCSE.
I do find that the tone of this letter is not nearly strident enough.
Stephen Oberski
I proudly cosign this letter.
The work to keep creationism out of schools has to be on all fronts. NCSE feels it needs to do it their way, fine. The Gnu Atheist front is just as important. Don’t attack your own side.
Also privileged to add my name to this excellent letter.
Judging from Roger Stanyard’s reaction above, I really hope someone else from the BCSE get to read the letter.
Stephen Tapply. Lincolnshire. UK
While not a scientist, I rely on logic and knowledge for my daily bread and I whole heartedly co-sign this letter.
David Wiener
Chapel Hill, NC
I cosign this letter.
Eric Robinson
San Jose, CA
An atheist geologist co-signing your excellent letter. Keep up the fight.
Atheism ≠ Science
Good. Do you want a cookie?
I’ll take one, if you’re offering.
Hope you brought enough for the rest of the class.
Will something like this suffice?
those do look tasty!
*snatch*
In support of Jerry’s Open letter–science education over bible studies–to the NCSE and BCSE.
Tony Gill
Seattle, WA
I agree completely. Cosign me!
Please consider me a cosigner to the letter to NCSE and BCSE.
William M. London
Professor, Department of Public Health
California State University, Los Angeles
The NCSE should present evolution in a strictly secular context. If that occurs, I will resume my support of the institution both philosophically and financially. I endorse Dr.Coyne’s letter.
/Clifford F Melick
I gladly sign it too.
NCSE,
In India(where I am from) there is a big threat to science from Hinduism, much more than creationism in the west.
Hinduism creeping into science education is pretty much unnecessary for it to retain its hold over peoples lives right from childhood (because one is hammered by religious rituals and symbols in social life on a daily basis.. puja/offerings by parents in the mornings, religious songs on the radio, religious lamp lighting for all social events which start only at auspicious times, appeals to gods in movie storylines, etc etc). However this hasnt stopped them from entering schools with outlandish, twisted claims of oneness with science, i.e science is just a different way of knowing the same truth.. a subset of truth in fact.
There is no way I can be allies with anyone that distorts science this way, and ultimately subjects society to great evils (such as the caste system and pseudosciences such as homeopathy and astrology) and bring many individual lives to ruin.
http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/vedic_science_Mira.htm
Ah – I was thinking “Meera Nanda” as I read – and the linked article is by Meera.
Meera’s a friend of mine, I’m proud to say.
Chuck Spotts here from Igo, CA (long time lurker); I’m happy to add my name to this letter.
I agree with Coyne 100% and am happy to sign off on that letter.
Chuck Morrison
My name is Gordon Duffy and I am nauseated and disappointed by the NCSE’s accomodationism.
I can certainly never give money in good conscience to an organisation that puts science in its name but spends money on faith projects.
Komon y’all are gittin’ like a bunch of Cristions organizing your own religion on a count of you don’t agree with each other, lets jest be Atheists and leave it be.it is a simple as apple pie, there is no gd, ahteists no morallity bettern some and don’t keep gittin’ in trouble all the time.
If it helps any:
I co-sign and agree with Prof Jerry Coyne’s open letter, even though I am not a citizen of the US or the UK. I believe scientific advancement is a universal right for all of humanity on this little ball in space, and that universality includes the ability to point out, in this modern, 21st century world from anywhere in the globe that anyone can say “you are doing it wrong.” 😉
Richard Marks
Brisbane, Australia
I’ll add my name to the letter. Richard, you really do handle these ugly matters quite eloquently. I’d be fuming.
Please add my signature to this letter.
Stan Pak, software engineer
Matawan, NJ
I’m Gary Usleaman of Alexandria, KY, and I cosign this letter.
While I can see where NCSE and BCSE cannot take a position against religion and still hope to make grounds in the area of science education (because it is a bad move, politically), I do feel that the recent “shushing” of Gnu Atheists does not contribute to their cause.
I can also imagine that the NCSE and BCSE are asked, or could be asked, to answer uncomfortable questions, like “Look what scientists say about us (Christians/religious people). How do YOU see us? Is this really what you think behind our backs?”, and I can sympathize that, in that regard, the Gnu Atheists could be making your jobs harder, I still do not see how spending energy trying to make the NCSE (in particular) more cozy to religious ideas as being the correct approach. I hope that the NCSE (and BCSE) can refocus their energies on science education alone, and leave the discussions of differing magisteria to other organizations.
Just as an informational post for those thinking this is some sort of “recent” debate issue…
The argument about organizations supporting science education taking an accomodationist stance and steamrolling atheists goes WAY back.
Here is an ancient summary thread that will at least start to bring those unfamiliar with the history of this issue up to speed:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/the-big-accommodatinism-debate-all-relevant-posts/
That thread is two years old, and I’d say this debate is at least 4 or 5 years in the making.
It has very little to do with Stanyard and Matzke, actually. In fact, I don’t think you’ll even find them mentioned in the OP’s I linked to.
….what’s more, and MORE troubling, is that this is also an issue that goes BEYOND the NCSE and other small science supporting organizations.
We see this issue raising a serious spectre even with the largest supporters of Science in the States:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/06/17/the-aaas-goes-all-accommodationist/
so, yes, it IS a large problem. It IS a serious issue, and it IS far, far bigger than Stanyard, Matzke, and the NCSE/BCSE even.
Good point, one that sometimes gets lost when we deal with the small details. All of this is still shades of the belief-in-belief / reflexive respect that religion still commands, even amongst scientists and atheists. It exists at all levels in the media, sciences and general public and is kept alive in large part by the pleasant, nice-seeming liberal believers that make faith seem like a virtue.
If only this were an issue about just a couple of people then we could shrug and move on but Ichthyic is right, it’s a big problem and the BCSE and NCSE are just two examples amongst many.
But hey, we’ve got to start somewhere and surely an organization of scientists should be a weak target. Right? Heh, we’ll see…
Someone should write “The Accommodationist Delusion” or “ACCOMMODATIONISM – The Failed Hypothesis”. It can start with the Lagash rebellion (~ 4400 ya, pass over the Enlightenment and continue up until Gay Pride. … oh, and there is plenty of research too. Up in your face works.
I sign…
I fully agree. Accommodationism is wrongheaded, bad policy and it alienates me too.
Though I am rather late to this party, I want to add my enthusiastic endorsement of this excellent and timely letter.
I agree with the letter and co-sign.
Sean Watson
I fully support Jerry Coins letter. Nobody can be convinced by sheepishly beating around the bush. It is embarrassing that in the US politicians in high office can make the most ridiculous assertions about this universe without being thrown out of office or being ridiculed mby the main stream press. The NCSE should be at the forefront whenever Anti-scientific statements are made. Show me any organization less scientific than religions. They all claim that their positions evade the scientific method. That makes all of them natural enemies of Science Education. Without exception!
I believe the proper expression is “sheepishly bleating around the bush”. At least I just deemed it proper just now. And I’m stealing it.
Proud to co-sign —
Dorian Cosmedy
Champaign, Illinois
I co-sign
My main impression of the accommodationists is that they are out and out liars. I feel a personal stake in this, because one of the big points in an early anti-gnu kerfuffle was a lie about me, personally.
Yeah, it’s me – I had that(explicitly metaphorical) rusty knife, for rhetorical sideways use on apologists for child rape. The post that they claimed was a big bad gnu threatening poor wee harmless innocent faitheists with death by sexual torture. Nobody’s ever even acknowledged the misquote, let alone apologised for it.
So I tend to take all those claims about gnasty gnus with a BIIIIIG truckload of salt.
I’ll sign on to the open letter, but I’m an Australian, not from the US or UK so I’m not sure if I count for this purpose.
My real name is Michael Cooper and I hereby cosign this letter.
Also co-signing this terrific letter:
John Schneider
Phoenix, AZ
I wasn’t going to sign. As a Norwegian the issue is a bit removed to me.
The behaviour of Stanyard on this tread convinced me to chip in.
I realise that the N and the B are largely political institutions so here’s my advice: The first rule of politics is don’t lie (or rather, don’t get caught lying, but if you lie you will get caught sooner or later). Lying in a venue the people you are lying about is particularly daft.
If I were Stanyards employer I would seriously consider if I had legal grounds for not being his employer anymore after his performance here. He is clearly either a very bad lier or very bad at basic comprehetion. He shouldn’t be either in his line of business.
Your more than welcome to contact the committee of the BCSE and demand that they fire me as an employee for lying.
Just to help you, the email is committee@bcseweb.org.uk Your message will automatically get to all committee members using this address.
I would advise you detail where you think I lied. Committee members are unlikely to want to spend a lot of time second guessing your claims.
Thanks for the email address. I have made my complaints known to them.
do report back with their response, if you really want to man up, Roger.
…oh, and do let us know what their response to the actual letter was too.
or maybe we should just ask them directly, since apparently there’s no reason to expect an honest reply from yourself.
Oops. My comment just tripped a reload where I was made aware of Jerry’s problem with thread bloat. My apologies & last comment!
I sign & wholeheartedly agree with this letter. As a Brit, I am also appalled by Roger Stanyards behaviour above. If his attitude is best of the BCSE then it’s in serious trouble.
Just had a look at the BCSE website, which has gone and spoilt my breakfast: its main article about Religion & Science says
and just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse,
British Centre for SCIENCE? EDUCATION? It’s shameful.
Uh, one more BCSE-ism. Sorry if it now spoils everyone else’s breakfast…
Roger: as a Brit I’m ashamed of you.
Can I sign too please? Mike Barnes
Which is rather odd as this was not written by a brit, IIRC. It was written by Peter Hess of the NCSE.
Personally, I don’t agree with it.
Peter is entitled to post on our wiki what he feels fit with, as is anyone else, barring the obvious disclaimers about vandalism, off topic stuff and so on.
If you want a good rant, there is also our community forum open to everyone.
Feel free to use it (same to everyone here). Keep bad language and insults to yourself, though.
You won’t.
Shrug.
How comfortable would anyone feel posting there when you said this: “A goodly number of our members are religious, or indifferent to religion or are uncomfortable with New Atheism.”
It seems that you are more worried about the seeming comfort of your religious members than you are those who don’t find religion something we should be kowtowing too.
That isn’t neutrality. Why should a science organization have to know or respect the supernatural beliefs of it’s member? why are those without supernatural beliefs being made to feel unwelcome?
It’s just plurality of opinion. If you feel uncomfortable with people who may not hold the same opinions as you, that’s your problem – not anyone else’s.
Shrug
Another straw man!? Again, you hear what was not said and miss what was actually said! I think this makes you an extremely poor choice for furthering science communication.
I have no problems working with religionists, but you have made it clear that the BCSE has problems with outspoken atheists– because, apparently, they make some of your members uncomfortable. I don’t see why the topic of religion even has to come up when the goal is furthering science!
How many ways can you avoid hearing that we are asking you to be neutral? Are religious people so sensitive that they won’t help further science education if it means working with people who won’t show deference to their faith?
How much more bigotry against “new atheists” are you going to be spreading under the title of the BCSE? Is there evidence that this furthers any goal?
Read Jerry’s letter again. You seem to be working vry hard to completely miss the point.
One of the basic skills in communication is being able to sum up what people are telling you.
So far, you fail. You seem to be having an entirely different conversation than everyone else.
This time you’re wrong about your own website, Roger. It’s under the heading ‘Education’ and it’s written by Timothy Chase, BCSE Member.
Thank you for correcting me.
Timothy has left the BCSE to concentrate on environmental issues in the USA.
As I say, we have a number of different positions on religion amongst our current (and former) members. Everyone is free to hold whatever religious opinions they feel comfortable with. We even have a well known British creationist regularly contributing to our public community forum.
Feel free to debate your opinions with him.
For the record, BCSE members are free to post to our wiki; it was mostly written by them.
Roger, this is disingenuous. The religious drivel quoted above wasn’t posted on a forum, it was on your main site under the heading ‘Education’.
I never said otherwise.
I never said otherwise.
then your saying what?
your educational mission statement and/or public policy is written by anyone who happens by at the time?
wtf?
Excuse me? Are you kidding? You told me yesterday to get something completely irrelevant to the point I’d made through my “thick skull.” You handed out a lot of insults to other people as well. Do you seriously think your language here has been uniformly polite and collegial?
Grow up. The WEIT blog has been full of insults over the last couple of days, from both sides.
It’s so bad that in private email I have negotiated a truce with RD.
@Roger
A truce? I am quite pleased to hear that. Now that such matters are taken care of, perhaps we could return to the issue that has animated this scuffle.
While a small comment here might not be the best forum, I would like your (and other Gnu critics’) answers to these simple questions:
(1) Are scientists ever allowed to criticize religion in public?
(2) When religion makes irrational claims or causes people to act irrationally, may scientists point that out?
The really is the heart of the Gnu philosophy. We say “yes” to both.
“Grow up. The WEIT blog has been full of insults over the last couple of days, from both sides.”
I can’t remember whether I’m supposed to be rubber or glue.
It seems to me that lies in the name of what we want to be true end up sticking to all of us.
Roger, do you think that Ophelia’s post was childish? I don’t. Why did you tell her “Grow up.”? I feel that such a taunt to an earnestly asked question belies a hotheadedness and lack of maturity on your part, not Ophelia’s. I suspect that your proximity and personal stake in this discussion has eroded your objectivity. Please make a special effort to read the comments of your interlocutors with charity and respond in kind. I rather think you created the toxic environment you now wallow in by your hotheaded responses. Had you taken a more tactful approach, you could actually have engaged in communication rather than trading insults. Sure, you’d still get a few insults here and there, but that’s to be expected by people communicating publicly.
Your track record here Roger indicates that you have a distinct deficit of skill in communicating your ideas and interacting with people skeptical of your ideas. Please work on it.
Roger,
I went through the BCSE site and I found some theology documents much like these. You appear to disavow these documents by saying that anyone can post them.
But don’t you see what sort of a problem this creates? When we quote people that work for the BCSE, we’re told that they were speaking as individuals and don’t represent the views of the BCSE. When we quote documents on the official web site, we’re told that even these are still just opinion pieces that don’t represent the BCSE’s views.
How then are we supposed to discern what the True BCSE endorses?
That aside, can you at least recognize that when theology and pro-religion (and anti-Gnu) views are posted on the BCSE site or in editorials by members with the BCSE masthead, then outsiders like us can reasonably believe that these are official positions?
If these are the official views, that’s a big problem and you seem to tacitly agree (you have tried to distance the BCSE from them). If these are opposed to the official BCSE view and yet are hosted on the BCSE site and appear with the BCSE logo, surely this is an equally big problem!
Whatever the cause, I think there are some issues that the BCSE needs to resolve and they won’t go away by trying to shift the blame to us.
You’re not supposed to discern what the True BCSE endorses. You’re supposed to sit down, shut up, and let them get on with the important work of ‘framing’ things to get the marks to play along. Do keep up.
In all his responses, Roger Stanyard seems innately incapable of either making a point or getting it from someone else. He calls upon others to freely express their opinions without resorting to insults but when reminded of his own lapses, he changes tact and urges them to stop being cry-babies. How is anyone ever supposed to argue with such specimens?
Simply put, you can’t. It’s impossible to have a productive discussion with someone who blatantly lies, continually changes his story, calls people names, and generally behaves as if he’s above the rules he insists everyone else follow.
Quite frankly, based off the behavior he’s exhibited in the last week, I’m starting to wonder about his mental state.
This is usually a baseless statement in an argument, tantamount to an ad hominem. But I reluctantly agree with you in this case. Roger’s behavior is baffling to say the least.
The accommodationist dogma used to be that (moderate) religious faith is no handicap when doing science.
Has their view changed now? Do they really think that (moderate) religious faith is actually an advatage when doing science?
I disagreee strongly. I don’t think such ass kissing advances the acceptance of evolution among the faithful.
I’d like to sign this.
Andrew Sinnott
Manchester UK
I cosign!
Tim Martin
New York, New York
I would like to cosign too – especially after visiting the BCSE website.
Fraser Januchowski-Hartley
I cosign.
Marc Epard
Lawrence, KS
The idea that atheists or scientists should adopt a position non-critical of religion so that science doesn’t lose support from weakly religious people has several flaws. It assumes that such support is beneficial. But, decades of pretending that faith and reason are compatible has led nowhere in the US. Irrationality and rejection of science seems to be growing. Pretending that science and religion are compatible has led many of the weakly religious to hold onto their mystical beliefs because such misinformation did not point out their beliefs are irrational and incompatible with a scientific perspective.Such believers must be confronted to make them reconsider their beliefs in light of the fact that the two ways of knowing are incompatible. Otherwise, they can continue along, honoring and protecting fundamentalism, without even looking at the topic.
What is the evidence that weakly religious people will become more religious and reject science if confronted with the absurdity and ill effects of religious belief? Maybe a majority of such people will choose rationality. After all, these people have already chosen to reject aspects of fundamental religious beliefs. They deserve an honest assessment form atheists and scientists, not misinformation intended to keep them happy in their beliefs so science organizations do not offend majorities and damage political aspirations.
I am a life member of NCSE. I fully support the open letter by Jerry Coyne.
I hope the NCSE takes heed. I have personally seen how effective and successful the approach used by Dawkins et.al. is. We need more of it.
Correction – for some reason the last letter of my name was dropped.
I, too, agree to co-sign this letter.
Lynn S. Wilhelm
Cary, NC
Cosigned.
What #126 and #143 said!
Happy to sign Jerry — letter is spot on.
Joe Geiger
Belleville, IL
I agree with the position long advocated, and clearly expressed by Dr. Coyne. Please co-sign me, Robert A. Schneider.
As a scientist and atheist I endorse every word of Jerry’s letter and cosign it.
Rob Smith, University of Leeds, UK
I co-sign with enthusiasm
Judy Hastings
Leicester UK
I wholeheartedly agree with the opinions and sentiments expressed by Drs Coynes, Dawkins and Myers. I hope the NCSE and BSCE take these criticisms in the spirit they were intended.
Good letter.
This is the same reasons that applied to the whole Mooney disaster. “We are such good communicators of science that we managed to turn a 100% friendly audience into 100% unfriendly one. You should now let us communicate with our opponents!”
If a person’s job is communication, and they display this level of sheer incompetence at it, there is very little room for complaints.
happy to add my name to the signatories of this letter.
Antoine Vekris, PhD
Bordeaux, France
“It’s so bad that in private email I have negotiated a truce with RD.”
Not so private then.
Something went badly wrong here. My view, for what it’s worth, is accommodationists thinking that “atheism” is one thing, like some kind of organised movement, that can be pointed in the “right” direction.
It isn’t. If you want people to follow, you have to lead, not scold. And, insisting that others should follow your lead in cosying up to religion on some issues (no matter how effective you may think that is), is not going to attract that many atheist followers.
I don’t know of the work you have done. Perhaps a summary of your activities and successes would be a good item to send to RichardDawkins.net, assuming that peace has been restored.
I can speak only for myself – I’m not going to ally with any religious leader who supports evolution but who considers me evil. There is more to the fight against faith than the teaching of science – the whole structure of faith-based thinking needs to be brought down so as to remove bigotry and oppression. When that happens, acceptance of teaching of science will follow.
Call me selfish if you like. Oh go on, you know you want to!
No. I respect you and if you come to that conclusion, it will have been well thought out.
Roger, if I may make a friendly suggestion. I think a positive step forward would be to take break from posting here, and produce a relatively brief report on the intentions, past actions, and successes of the BCSE, and try and submit to RichardDawkins.net. That will give people some background, an understanding of what you are up to, and if you have had successes, that will give a different perspective on things. I’m sure you will get some flak, no matter what you post, but at least that should make the position of the BCSE clearer.
Some personal advice, you can, of course ignore (from someone who you know has fecked up on forums before). Take a break from posting for a few days, and let things calm down. It’s very easy to keep digging without realising, as I know from experience.
Feel free to message me on facebook if you have any thoughts you need to discuss (hey, anyone is free to message me on facebook anyway)!
We may disagree profoundly about “atheist politics”, but disagreements do not need to end up in a mess like this.
Will do Steve
Roger, the ONLY words you should be entering into a post here at this point should be something like these:
past that, your continued misreading of what people are saying, your inane and entirely irrelevant defense of the UK as “essentially religion free and nothing like the States”.
…are doing nothing but digging you a bigger hole, and further convincing the rest of us that you have no business promoting science education.
I mean, why on earth would I encourage an organization to utilize a spokesperson who evidently can’t read or listen correctly?
seriously. look back at your comments in this thread.
would YOU hire you to be a spokesperson?
For the record, the conversation was with Larry Moran, not Richard Dawkins. The latter was not present.
My statements are purely about what I recall Larry Moran told me.
Please add my name as a co-signer as well. Thanks,
I have little to add except to say that I’ve never come across an official spokesman as singularly artless and dense as Roger Stanyard. If I was tempted to support the BCSE at all his presence in their ranks would immediately see to it that I didn’t.
Signing with my real name, for what it’s worth (I’m neither American, nor British, nor a scientist)
Seanna Watson
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
I enthusiastically cosign the letter.
Peter Nothnagle
Iowa City, Iowa
Long-time reader and lurker, de-lurking.
I’m not a scientist, but I AM a strong and strident supporter of the scientific method and good science. I am proud to co-sign this letter, with my full and real name – most excellently written and responded, Drs. Coyne and Dawkins!
Anuradha Ramanathan,
Seattle, WA.
Atheist, Science supporter, Software Engineer.
I wonder if people think that this thread is worth continuing? The same points continue to be made over and over again. I have never closed a thread, and don’t intend to here, but is there any point to going on with this discussion?
kthxbye
I thought the point was to continue to gather signatories.
The rest is superfluous to that, right?
+1
Yes, signatories continue, all others, bow out please!
Besides, Nick’s and Roger’s self-immolation actually seem to be attracting some signatories.
lol
indeed, car wrecks do tend to attract attention.
🙂
I sent my support of this letter via regular mail to the NCSE, because I have concerns about using my real name on this forum due to job concerns and atheist prejudice.
Please add my name to the list of signatories.
Scot Rafkin,Ph.D.
I’m late as usual, but I wish to cosign.
I cosign this letter.
Torbjörn Larsson, PhD
Uppsala, Sweden
Okay, from now on I’d like this thread to contain signatories of the letter only. No more unproductive back and forths–it’s clear that the parties involved are not going to change their mind, and that leads only to invective.
Thanks.
JC, it might be worth adding that as an Update to the main post, for those that might reply to in stream comments before reaching this…
Now bowing out.
I fully endorse Prof Coyne’s letter.
Not only is the non-evidenced mudslinging by accomodationists unproductive with regard to science education and potentially counterprofuctive with regard to atheist/secular-minded scientists, it may even be destructive in some areas, giving creationists the idea that some kind of schism exists within those who accept the fact of evolution and therefore casting doubt on the theory where none exists.
Silly, unjustified hit-pieces about “tone” or “civility” are white noise at best, potentially destructive distractions at worst. Presenting a united front concerning science education is the only way to increase public understanding. This ridiculous non-argument begun by coddlers of faith will & should amount to nothing.
Hank
(Mandrellian)
Happy to cosign.
Eric Jones
Rome, Georgia
Another Canuck happy to co-sign.
Emanuele Oriano, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
I fully endorse Prof Coyne’s letter.
Angela Grace,
Las Vegas, Nevada
I (a Brit) agree with Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins and would like to co-sign this letter.
You can add my name (Aaron Heiss) to the list of signatories.
I endorse the letter. Thank you.
I encourage the NCSE to seriously consider Jerry’s letter. To ignore religion as the source of supernatural world views is self defeat.
The conflict is not religion vs. evolution; the primary conflicts are between knowledge and superstition, which encompasses the suppression of human values by religion.
I happily co-sign. Well said.
Richard Laughlin
College Station, TX
I’d sign that letter.
Martin Brummell
PhD student
University of Saskatchewan
Saskatoon, Canada
Please add Sandra Albro to the list of co-signers.
I am surprised to read that an organization led by the respectable Eugenie Scott could be guilty of trying to suppress the criticism of religion. If it is true (I have not followed the topic until now), I am disappointed. In any case, I wholeheartedly support the underlying message of this letter – to silence the critics of religion is as bad as giving preference to the religious evangelists and their superstitious views. Therefore, I, Chris Bloom, of Sarasota, FL, add my signature to this letter.