Genie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), was the subject of a nice profile by Cornelia Dean in yesterday’s New York Times.
Scott has been NCSE director for 27 years, but, according to Dean, will step down at the end of this year, and will also write a memoir. I’m curious who the new director will be. Genie had a calm and genial demeanor that was remarkably effective when combined with her steely resolve.
Regardless, she’s done a superb job fighting creationism in the U.S., capped by the remarkable and influential victory for evolution in Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover et al., the Scopes Trial of our generation. The NCSE has now added climate-change denialism to its list of issues to battle.
As everyone here knows, of course, I have some problems with the NCSE’s accommodationist strategy of coddling religion. This is noted in the article:
[Scott] is particularly distressed to hear people assert that belief in evolution is incompatible with religious faith. Though Dr. Scott described herself as a “humanist” who is not religious, she said, “there is not a dichotomous division between people of faith and science. There are many people of faith who accept evolution. This is something many people do not realize.”
This, of course, is a political tactic, and I suspect Genie knows better. After all, of evolution is compatible with religious faith, why does every bit of opposition to evolution in America (and elsewhere as well) come from religion? Yes, people can be scientists and religious, or religious and science-friendly, but that shows compatibility in the trivial sense of being able to embrace incompatible worldviews and methodologies. Science’s methods of finding truth about the cosmos are absolutely incompatible with religion’s methods for discerning “truth”: revelation, dogma, authority, and wish-thinking. And yes, most religions do depend on discerning and accepting truths about the universe.
And there’s really no evidence that accommodationism has helped reduce creationism in America. Opposition to evolution has been pretty steady, waning only a bit in the last few years, which is consonant not with accommodationism, which has always been the dominant strategy, but with the rise of “nones” and public atheism.
But congrats to Genie on a job well done. She’ll leave large shoes to fill.
But the fact is that half of Christians in the U.S., 75% of Jews, 80% of Hindus and most Buddhists accept that evolution has happened. I picture Jerry campaigning in churches, synagogues and temples, arguing fervently that the correct interpretation of their faith involves opposition to evolution, and that they should be more consistent and reject evolution.
Yeah, but of those people, the majority accept theistic evolution, that is, God guided it. That’s not evolution the way you and I understand it.
Also, those Jews, Hindus, and many of the Buddhists believe in insupportable woo and supernaturalism, and yes, I will be vociferous about opposing those “ways of knowing,” which are inimical to science.
Really, Joe, it’s a low blow to say that I’m going to go to synagogues and temples and tell people that their faith is incompatible with evolution (indeed, with science)—and ask them to give up evolution. You know I wouldn’t do that, because it’s stupid.
But I will continue to point out that the basic methodology of religious “knowing”—faith—is incompatible with science’s way of knowing. Since you’re a nonbeliever and a scientist, I assume you agree with me.
Or are you maintaining that a. science and religion ARE compatible (I can’t believe you think that) and that b. telling people this is the best way to get rid of creationism in America?
The fact is also that a high percentage of married people commit adultery. According to your lights, that means that the marriage vows to remain faithful are compatible with adultery.
If I went to churches and temples, I would argue not that they should give up evolution, but their religious reliance on faith. For it’s the weakening of religion’s grasp on our country that is the fastest route to getting rid of creationism. Making nice with the faithful won’t work. And you know it.
No, of course I don’t think you are off to Poland to give lectures on “Why Evolution Is True But If You Are A Catholic You Shouldn’t Agree That It Is True”.
Genie Scott has the task of rallying people to oppose creationist efforts to subvert teaching of evolution. She finds allies in both religious and nonreligious people who know that evolution happened. The religious ones may also think that God intervened in human evolution, but they often do agree that natural selection produced most other adaptations. And that divine intervention should not be taught in the schools as science.
I don’t think that it would help Genie’s efforts if she spent her time trying to debate with her allies about the Virgin Birth.
But that’s not what we’d like to see her do.
What would be ideal would be if the NCSE did what the Evolution Society (of which Jerry is past president) does. Here is their official statement on the subject, and you’ll notice not even a hint of a mention of a reference to religion:
In contrast, the NCSE — I shit you not — has Bible study lessons prominently featured on their Web site.
That’s all we’re asking: that the National Center for Science Education should have nothing but science and should leave religion out of it entirely. If religion has no place in the classroom — and it doesn’t — then it has no place in science education advocacy, either.
At absolute most, the NCSE might reasonably have one single page on religious perspectives, with the sum grand total of the content from the NCSE being a statement to the effect that different religions have different perspectives and those seeking to understand those perspectives should contact a suitable authority in said religion. It might also be tempting to offer deep links to the official statements on Evolution from the most populous examples of said religions, but that instantly puts them on the murky ground of endorsing said statements.
But what they’ve actually done is gone waaaaaay overboard into the realm of promoting a particular theological position, that Jesus loves Evolution, which not only is a minority religious doctrine, it isn’t even supported by the source documents nor official position statements from the churches themselves.
Cheers,
b&
These people are still creationists, and will most often learn their children to start out likewise, despite that they acquiesce to having science taught as science.
That is giving them a tacit approval of their brainwashing of children, as well as of believing that their beliefs are not incompatible with science.
Maybe that is why we, as Coyne notes, can see that accommodationism hasn’t reduced creationism. It is more likely it cements the problem.
Who said that Genie should try to debate about religion (she is an atheist, though)? She should just stop pushing a liberal kind of theology that says that God and the Bible are compatible. That IS theology, you know, Joe? So the NCSE is in the business of pushing theology. It would be better if they just deep sixed the accommodationist stuff.
I can tell you this: I’m not aware of anything more than a handful of people who have come over to evolution by suddenly learning that it’s compatible with their faith. On the other hand, there are tons of people who finally accepted evolution after they gave up their faith. Just look at Dawkins’s “Converts Corner.”
Accommodationism of the NCSE variety doesn’t work. They should just do what the SSE does: remain silent on all matters religious.
Are you suggesting that whatever nebulous concept of biological evolution held by the majority of those believers that claim they accept evolution is a reasonably accurate understanding of the basics of modern evolutionary theory?
I’m not even suggesting that the people who attend skeptics conventions have “a reasonably accurate understanding of the basics of modern evolutionary theory”.
Then I am not sure what relevance the statistics you cited have. I suppose it was just a set up to express your opposition to the OPs non-accommodationist point of view.
I didn’t fake those numbers. (I should have added that 45% of Muslims in the U.S. believe evolution happened).
Look back at the quote from Genie Scott in the OP.
So why are you sidestepping darrelle’s points in both of your comments here?
Your later comment is just a reaffirmation that you aren’t listening.
Where on earth did claim you faked the numbers? I never questioned the veracity of the numbers I questioned the relevance of them in the context of your other statements above.
Oops. Where on earth did I claim . . .
You didn’t claim I faked the numbers. I apologize for implying that you did.
Look, Jerry was unhappy with Eugenie Scott’s statement that there were “many people of faith who accept evolution”. I cited some numbers to show that this is in fact true. Do they have the full, sophisticated, sound understanding that you all have? No. Do they believe some things that most of us here see as unscientific and silly? Yes.
NCSE has sometimes gone too far in reassuring the faithful. But keep in mind what its task is, to defend the teaching of evolution (and climate change too, now). One of the chief tactics of creationists is to present the issue as God versus Darwin, to put people like liberal Episcopalians or Reform Jews in a position where they think that if they don’t want to change their religion they must conclude that evolution did not happen.
That is why Genie Scott said what she did. The times that I have spoken on creationism, much less effectively than Genie, I have made the same point.
Joe, it depends on what you mean by “accept”. If they’re merely cherry-picking ideas from evolution to shore up their faith, then most of us here would argue that they haven’t really accepted it, regardless of how they answer survey questions.
So the further question then is whether NCSE should be in the business of encouraging such cherry-picking. Most of us here feel that they shouldn’t be, and that doing so is at odds with their mission of improving science education.
Joe, you’re claiming that about 50% of US xians and muslims believe evolution happened like that is a GOOD thing. It’s a pretty damn pathetic figure for a well-established fact if you ask me.
Sure, but to an evangelical who is wavering, impressed by the science but unwilling to give up being a Christian, 50% would look like a very big number.
As for Gregory Kusnick’s point above, when there’s a struggle to get people to vote for the forces of light over the forces of darkness (say in a school board election) you don’t go around only asking for votes from people who aren’t “cherry-picking”.
Yes, but most of those are, according to statistics, believers of “intelligent guiding” aka “intelligent design” aka creationism. That is not accepting evolution with its entirely natural theory.
That is the same as someone that accept that a stone has fallen but believe in “intelligent guiding” aka “intelligent falling”. That is not accepting gravitation with its entirely natural theory.
I am always very disappointed when people cherry pick facts. You can own your opinion but you can’t own your facts.
According to statistics IIRC nearly all religious in US rejects evolution and accepts creationism in some form or other. Including forms that are purposefully mimicking evolution.
I’m not arguing that a big fraction of the U.S. population has a great understanding of evolution. Why does anyone think that is the question? The pertinent issue for Eugenie Scott is whether enough of them can be enlisted in opposition to attempts to sneak creationism into the schools.
Again, we’re not interested in winning people to the Darwin flag.
We’re interested in keeping religion out of the schools.
All religion, including the theologically-liberal Biblical Christianity that the NCSE routinely promotes.
Cheers,
b&
The biggest question is does accommodationism work? Are individuals more likely to accept evolution, if their core beliefs are not challenged. I don’t think anyone, especially the NCSE, has done studies to show their methods work. I have even offered to help them design a curriculum that would try to answer that question, but they have refused to even consider it. I think they are afraid of getting an answer they wouldn’t like.
I think it’s especially telling that Richard has a novel’s worth of anecdata from people for whom being challenged did the trick, not accommodation…and only other “nasty strident confrontationist militant atheists” like Jerry and PZ have anything similar.
Where’s the Accomodationist’s Assemblage?
The closest I can think of is the NCSE’s own Clergy Letter project, but, last I checked, all the signatories were a) thoroughly god-soaked; 2) high-ranking officials of their organizations desperately pleading with their own membership not to abandon the faith as opposed to random schmucks offering unsolicited stories about their own decisions on the subject; and III) personally proponents of theistic evolution (i.e., intelligent design dressed up in even more scientific-sounding language).
If ever there was an example of being hoist by one’s own petard….
Cheers,
b&
She is amazing. I did a post on her this morning as well.
http://www.paleolibrarian.info/2013/09/brief-post-eugenie-c-scott-retiring.html
Cheers,
David
“. . . if evolution is compatible with religious faith, why does every bit of opposition to evolution in America (and elsewhere as well) come from religion.” If this is your defense that religion & evolution are not possible, then I think your logic is off-base.
That’s not Jerry’s argument, but rather a toss-off remark to help illustrate and support the point with some very obvious and well-known evidence.
Jerry’s argument is that evolution and faith are compatible in the same sense that marriage and adultery are compatible: sure, you can find huge numbers of individuals who are committed simultaneously to both, but that just demonstrates the human capacity for doublethink, not for compatibility.
Evolution is a purely natural process, just like the hydrological cycle or planetary mechanics. Virtually all religions, though, insist that one or more of their gods has a hand in “guiding” evolution or the like. That’s as compatible with actual reality-based understanding of Evolution the same way as claiming that the gods direct storms and cause eclipses.
Cheers,
b&
Genie’s definitely had a hugely positive influence on science education in our country.
I think it’s pretty clear that her accommodationism serves to erode at the good she’s done, but she’s done so much good and her accommodationism has been mild enough that I don’t think she deserves more than gentle chiding for it.
Well, maybe vigorous chiding, but that’s just my style….
Cheers,
b&
“This, of course, is a political tactic, and I suspect Genie knows better. After all, of evolution is compatible with religious faith, why does every bit of opposition to evolution in America (and elsewhere as well) come from religion?”
Perhaps she just means what she says. Genie doesn’t have to be religious to accept that some religious people wholeheartedly accept evolution, and vice versa.
The second part of your argument establishes that only some religious folks disbelieve evolution. As Genie points out; all sorts of religious people embrace science and evolution.
“And there’s really no evidence that accommodationism has helped reduce creationism in America.”
I don’t see why this matters. The point of
accommodationism should be to make religious people feel welcome in science if they adhere to the scientific method whilst doing science, just as Democrats, Republicans, gays, women and so on should be welcomed. There is simply no point making unnecessary enemies. Reducing belief in creationism is good, of course, but the point is to strengthen the pro-evolution forces.
The point is we’re not trying to rally supporters to Darwin’s flag. We’re trying to cure our society of the ills of irrationalism and supernaturalism.
If you believe that species evolve and that Jesus is the one who evolves them, whatever it is you believe has nothing whatsoever to do with reality. And that’s the real problem.
Cheers,
b&
“If you believe that species evolve and that Jesus is the one who evolves them…”
That sounds like theistic evolution, which I am not advocating.
No, but it is the type of evolution overwhelmingly endorsed by religious people who “believe” in Evolution.
b&
It seems to me that Jerry’s message is not ‘science and theistic evolution are incompatible’ but the stronger ‘science and theism are incompatible’. This is likely to alienate and exclude scientists who are believers, which is not in the interests of science. The strong form of the argument you advocate will do nothing to win over creationists but will alienate believers and people like Genie who don’t want to go looking for trouble. It also provides ammunition for creationist claims of intolerance on our part.
If a scientist really would choose Jesus over empiricism, that reflects a profound intellectual laziness and academic untrustworthiness such that all his research must be independently verified to ensure that he’s not using the same sorts of “faith-based” standards to record and interpret his findings.
Again, the goal isn’t to rally people to the Darwin flag. The goal is to uphold the highest standards of integrity and empiricism, and to hold others to those same standards, wherever the chips may fall.
I’m happy to be labelled as “intolerant,” so long a the label is properly applied. And I think all upstanding citizens are equally intolerant, on a great many topics.
I’m intolerant of child abuse, for example; are you an accommodationist when it comes to child abuse?
Or, to pick an especially easy target: I’m intolerant of Nazism. Would you join me in such intolerance, or would you be an accommodationist Quisling on that subject?
There are times when one must grow a spine or else be a passive accomplice to evil. The encroachment of theology upon our Enlightened civil society is one such time.
Cheers,
b&
This type of argument is virtually never used with the intent to win over creationists. The clear winner is that no argument is likely to win over someone with strongly held beliefs. At least not in the short term.
As you no doubt have heard numerous times our stated intentions for these types of arguments are that some other people witnessing the exchange may be influenced positively by such arguments. Since there are many first hand personal accounts that show that this does actually happen the challenge you have is to show that your favored accommodationist tactics not only have better results, but that there is some good reason why only your tactics should be used.
One other thing. This argument may not meet with your standards of politeness, but it does have the distinction of being accurate. The counter argument that science and religion are compatible because there are religious believers that are also scientists is virtually a non sequitur.
The crucial difference I see between accommodationists and non-accommodationists is that accommodationists are fine with people holding a distorted view of evolution and science in general as long as believers say they accept them. Non-accommodationists are not content with that because it leaves the core issue, faith vs rational assessment of evidence, unresolved.
+1
b&
“The crucial difference I see between accommodationists and non-accommodationists is that accommodationists are fine with people holding a distorted view of evolution and science in general as long as believers say they accept them.”
I’m not fine with people holding a distorted view of evolution, whether they believe in theistic evolution or some other variation. I can’t imagine Genie Scott or the NCSE accepting them either.
It seems to me that Jerry’s message is not ‘science and theistic evolution are incompatible’ but the stronger ‘science and theism are incompatible’. This is likely to alienate and exclude scientists who are believers, which is not in the interests of science.
Our first duty in intellectual inquiry is to tell the truth as we understand it. Pretending to believe that science and theism are compatible to avoid the possibility of alienating people who don’t want to hear that view is fundamentally dishonest and ultimately destructive to the interests of science.
And what evidence do you have that arguing that science and theism are incompatible “is likely to alienate and exclude scientists who are believers,” anyway? Why isn’t it equally or more likely to encourage believers to question their faith, and to deter others from becoming believers in the first place?
Ben, that may be what you are trying to do, and it’s a noble cause. But that doesn’t mean that that is or should be the primary mission of the NCSE. I’m pretty sure they’re focused on, y’know, improving science education.
You’re doing the analogous of pointing at the Red Cross and shouting “you should be curing cancer!”
That’s not the right analogy.
If the Red Cross embraced homeopathy in the name of political expediency in order to secure more support for medical aid in disaster relief, I’d be shouting at them the same way I’m shouting at the NCSE.
The primary mission of the NCSE allegedly should be the promotion of science education. But what they’re actually doing is promoting one particular theological position — and a rather unpopular theological position, at that. It’s a theological position of Biblical liberalism and anti-literalism. Indeed, it’s a position that, were a teacher to espouse it in the classroom, it would constitute a gross violation of the Establishment Clause.
I’m not exaggerating.
If a biology teacher even paraphrased this article (two clicks from their home page):
http://ncse.com/religion/how-do-i-read-bible-let-me-count-ways
or merely hinted that the position it describes deserves serious consideration, that would actually be a more overt act of religious endorsement than all those “teach the controversy” attempts.
So, tell me: why is it somehow noble and admirable for the NCSE to themselves do that which they’re ostensibly fighting to keep the schools from doing?
Cheers,
b&
If they think God pulled the strings of evolution to produce us, then no, they haven’t wholeheartedly accepted it. Wholehearted acceptance implies a willingness to let go of beliefs about human exceptionalism that aren’t supported by the evidence.
Is the NCSE advocating acceptance of the idea that God “pulled the strings”? I would agree with criticism of them or anyone else who did.
From the NCSE website:
There they are, telling people it’s OK to believe that God pulls the strings.
“Many religious people do.”
Weasel words. They are just reporting a fact. Many people believe all sorts of things. In my view they are simply coalition building. Many people are atheists, liberal Democrats or believe in fairies. Is the NCSE telling atheists to believe in theistic evolution? I don’t think so. They’re just trying to get people accepting evolution.
No, they’re telling theists to believe in theistic evolution. The point is that they shouldn’t be telling anybody to believe in theistic evolution, because it’s not science, and their mission is all about teaching accurate science.
Many people believe all sorts of things, but the NCSE doesn’t post essays about it on their website. They chose to highlight this particular unevidenced belief because they want people to think it’s OK.
Right here from the horse’s mouth:
So, yeah. Full-throttle advocacy of unabashedly Christian Idiot Design Creationism from the NCSE.
Cheers,
b&
Ben, did you notice the bit where the quote said “[f]or these believers…”? The NCSE is just reporting how some people think.
“…using the gift of human rationality to discover the exciting story of how life ― including human life ― has developed on the earth.”
Something is wrong with this?
“Full-throttle advocacy of unabashedly Christian Idiot Design Creationism from the NCSE.”
They are doing no such thing. What they are reporting is that some believers accept evolution, and are using human rationality to explore it.
You might have missed the title of the essay: “How do I read the Bible? Let ME count the ways.”
It’s perfectly clear form the context that the author reads the Bible the same way the Pope does.
Cheers,
b&
In The Faith Healers by James Randi, there is mention of a Genie Scott associated with the Bay Area Skeptics who helped with efforts to infiltrate faith healingrevivals and expose fraudulent faith healers. I don’t know if it’s the same Genie Scott, but how many people with that name could there be?
sub
Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the founders of the “modern synthetic theory of evolution” was a practicing Christian. Very few have matched his contribution to evolutionary biology.
Very few people have been outside of Earth’s atmosphere. The christian gods had no hand in the matter.
So, I don’t know, was Theodosius Dobzhansky a stamp collector too?
“…was Theodosius Dobzhansky a stamp collector too?”
He may have been, or he may not have been. But is anyone saying that stamp collecting is incompatible with evolution? But he, RA Fisher, and many others demonstrate that religion and science can coexist. That non-believers like Scott, who doesn’t have a vested interest in protecting her own faith, adds support.
Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, and countless millions more over the millennia have similarly demonstrated that marriage and adultery can equally coexist.
…but I don’t think that’s exactly the point you were trying to make….
Cheers,
b&
Right to the point that neither christianity nor stamp collecting have anything do to with evolution. However, stamp collectors aren’t known to claim that the first stamp manipulates natural selection. On the other side, most christians that realize the facts of evolution also claim that their christian gods were involved in some way – that isn’t science and it isn’t compatible with the proven facts of evolution by natural processes.
Now, if you and other accommodationists and faitheists would care to separate christians who believe their gods guided evolution from those christians that support evolution as only the result of natural processes without any intervention from any gods, you might find lukewarm support from me. However, to point to one or two christians that might accept the true nature of evolution and in doing so suggest that therefore christianity and/or christians are compatible with evolution is disingenuous at best.
Good luck and best wishes to her, what an amazing person. What a great contribution to the cause of evolution education!
***
[Long aside, the stupid false dichotomy of “they’re compatible/not compatible” has always bothered me. I can count at least 2*(number of sects) answers to the compatibility question. In terms of claims about the world, the compatibility question has to be answered sect by sect; some may be, others may not be. And in terms of method for deriving understanding, same deal. That makes 2*# of sects, with some sects likely to be split (i.e. compatible in terms of claims or method, but not both). Moreover, JAC acts as if incompatible in method is a sign of irrationality, but in fact we humans rely on lots of methods for belief formation that are incompatible with science, and it doesn’t really bother us. So even if a faith is incompatible with science in that way, it doesn’t automatically imply that someone using both is behaving irrationally – any more than someone using the jury system in the courtroom (12 people vote? How unscientific!) and science in the lab to is behaving irratioanlly. Methodologically, law is inconsistent with science – but a person can use both in different contexts and be rational. So, defenders of the “if its incompatible, you must ditch one” poition, let me ask you this – are you going to throw the legal baby out with the religious bathwater, or are you going to give up this incompatibility = irrationality implication?
IMO, what we should focus on is identifying when a faith is incompatible in socially and pragmatically important ways. Ways that undermine either the acceptance of well supported scientific claims about the world, or that undermine the correct use and understanding of science as a method. Many sects do one or the other, so it’s not like focusing on the incompatibilities that really matter is going to cause us to lack for targets.
As it regards the NCSE, I think they are wrong in a very nuanced way. They should admit the incompatibilities and give a good argument about why they don’t matter for the organization’s mission. They should argue that many mainstream religious organizations are our allies despite some incompatibilities, not argue that there are no incompatibilities. When it comes down to brass tacks, most Christian sects think Jesus rose from the dead. That’s a claim incompatibility with science, which would conclude that no such historical event has likely happened, for biological reasons. Pretending there are no incompatibilities with their allies makes NCSE weaker and undermines their status as an objective, defender of sound science education.
Okay, stepping off soapbox now.]
This doesn’t really make sense to me, except I understand you are irritated by something. What you say we should focus on is exactly what we are focusing on when we say that faith and science are incompatible. That phrase certainly needs to be unpacked for those not familiar with these arguments but it sure seems like most people who frequent this blog would understand that without further explanation.
Of course, I might be misunderstanding your comment.
Sure, but to an evangelical who is wavering, impressed by the science but unwilling to give up being a Christian, 50% would look like a very big number.
As for Gregory Kusnick’s point above, when there’s a struggle to get people to vote for the forces of light over the forces of darkness (say in a school board election) you don’t go around only asking for votes from people who aren’t “cherry-picking”.
Getting out the vote is fine, and of course you want as many allies as you can get.
But ultimately, science education has to be about teaching the difference between ideas that are supported by evidence and those that aren’t, and that goal ought not to be tossed under the bus in the name of getting out the vote.
Sorry folks, incompetence on my part. The above comment is a reply to “Nick” in the thread following comment #1, way above.
Please ignore comment 10 above. I have made a copy and put it in the proper subthread, but cannot delete #10 itself.
I don’t know.
There is an amazing trait within many or most major US science organizations of making theological claims supporting an accommodationist view, which are not seen elsewhere in the world what I know of.
You all know the basic claim they make on religion, that ‘science and religion are not in conflict’. Something that say the recent discovery of the human bottleneck of no less than 1200 breeder pairs that directly rejects the claims describing the current catholic god with its necessary 1 human founder pair tests as false.
So it is a) an unsupported theological claim and b) empirically false.
If the NCSE, which houses the same theological claim, can be asserted to not be responsible for the strategy or not have been involved in the political lobbying required to insert religion into science, I will join in a full approval of Scott’s work. But as long as I see this problematic question standing there, I can not.
And by the way, wouldn’t US now need an anti-NCSE organization that balances NCSE, specifically to remove the theology espoused by, and tarring, these science organizations?
What has the NCSE done to sneak religion into the schools?
Here’s exhibit A, from their own Web site, no more than two clicks from any page:
http://ncse.com/religion/how-do-i-read-bible-let-me-count-ways
Cheers,
b&
I don’t see this as trying to sneak religion into the schools. I think they are just trying to reassure religious people that it’s okay to believe in evolution, and to point out where religious belief contradicts science and where it doesn’t. I don’t see this as an attempt to turn atheists, agnostics and the indifferent into card carrying you-know-whats.
Really? You don’t think that a science educator might discover advice for educators on the official Web site of the National Center for Science Education endorsing theistic evolution and subsequently incorporate that into a lesson plan, complete with quotes from the Pope’s sermon and all?
You may be cool with teachers giving Bible study lessons in biology classes (so long as they’re pro-evolution Bible study lessons, of course), but most of the rest of us ain’t.
Cheers,
b&
I’m sure the Discovery Institute will be happy to help you form your anti-NCSE organization.
So we can’t criticize the NCSE’s tactics without getting accused of aiding and abetting creationists? I find it very surprising and sad that the NCSE tries to tell religious believers how to correctly practice religion – is that their job? shouldn’t they stick to science? It is pretty clear they are not well versed in education, but science they can seem to do. Religion, who the hell knows.
Criticize all you want. I was reacting to Torbjörn Larsson’s proposal that there should be sn organization founded to fight the NCSE.
Isn’t her name Eugenie Scott??
Correct.
She also goes by, “Genie,” much the same way a “Susan” might also go by, “Sue.”
b&
How can it ever be a good idea to lie to people about their religion and about science in order to win them over to science.
Reblogged this on hitchens67 Atheism WOW!! Campaign.