Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
When it comes to the relationship of evolution to atheism, there are basically two positions from evolution supporters. There is the Dawkins/Dennett position that evolution provides strong support for atheism, that it renders theism useless, and so forth. And there are people like me, Wesley Elsberry and Eugenie Scott, who take the position that while evolution is certainly incompatible with certain forms of religious belief, it is not incompatible with other forms of religious belief; further, that there is no logical reason why evolution and faith must contradict (and among those three, Genie is an atheist, Wesley is a theist and I am a deist, so the question of compatibility is separate from the question of what we actually believe). But many ID advocates believe that people like Wes and Genie and myself are just pretending to think that they're compatible, and that really makes me angry. For instance, this post from Bruce Chapman of the DI:
Dennett and Dawkins say in public what Eugenie Scott says in private. Ruse may actually be sincere (though sincerely wrong), and not a ruse deviser at all. He was morally compromised some time ago when he took to quaffing beer with known "creationists in disguise" (as the ACLU's favorite judge would call them). Ever since then Ruse has been incapable of sober materialist judgement.
Ruse is on our side in the dispute, by the way. He believes that evolution and theism are logically compatible (though obviously not all forms of theism). But notice what Chapman does here. He claims that Genie Scott is lying when she says they're compatible, and that in private she says otherwise. Ruse, on the other hand, because he's friendly with Dembski, might not be lying. Does he have any evidence that Genie is lying? Of course not. It's a mere assumption. And I can tell you from personal experience that he is absolutely wrong.
I've talked to Genie about this, in private. I've also talked to many others who take the same position, like Rob Pennock. I can assure you that none of them says anything different in private. Our position that the two are compatible is a sincerely held position, and it makes me quite angry that people like Chapman would throw around such an accusation with no evidence whatsoever to support it.
Some go even further than that. A couple of years ago, in an exchange on my blog, Rusty Lopez claimed that Genie just placates theists like Ken Miller, then turns around and laughs at him behind his back for his foolish belief in God. That accusation infuriated me then as well, because it is making a very nasty accusation at someone without any evidence at all (to be fair, Rusty did later apologize for that and earned my respect as a result; I don't mean to single him out here, but I think that this accusation is in fact widely believed among the anti-evolution crowd).
I don't want this to turn into a debate over which side is right on this issue. That's not the point of this post. The point is that people can sincerely disagree on this question. Chapman is wrong when he says that we take one position in public and one in private. And Dennett is wrong when he claims, in the link from Chapman's post, that Genie and others take the compatibility position out of some sort of strategic calculation. Dennett simply cannot conceive that someone would disagree with him on the matter, and so he must assume that any advocacy of a contrary position is inherently dishonest. And frankly, it infuriates me even more that someone on our own side - someone I consider among the finest minds in the world - would take potshots at our sincerity as well.
Comments
The "evolution-is-incompatible-with-belief-in-god" crowd have a problem because of their specific belief system. Their belief is a house of cards, and they have chosen to make "evolution is untrue" one card. Remove that card and the whole house is threatened. This particular belief has little or nothing to do with the basic tenets of christianity. It is a modern incarnation of a primitive belief system.
You absolutely cannot argue rationally with someone who believes this because it threatens the structure of their belief system. Not only can they not accept evolution, they also cannot accept that evolution is compatible with belief in god. Either possibility invalidates one of their core beliefs.
Posted by: Mark Paris
| May 11, 2006 12:28 PM
I wonder how relevant the question of whether theism and evolution are compatible really is. Theism (at least some incarnation) is logically compatible with virtually anything, and evolution and the FSM are logically compatible. But scientists who give evidence top priority are not going to be assuaged by mere syllogisms, however airtight.
Also, it seems to me -- and I assume to most others eyeballing this ongoing creationist/non-creationist set-to -- that practically everyone making loud noises on the DI/cre-cre side adheres to just that brand of theism that is not logically compatible with the natural world as we understand it (e.g., YECs and other Bible literalists).
Posted by: Beaming Visionary
| May 11, 2006 12:38 PM
Ed writes:
As for myself, my position is much like that of Genie, an atheist who nevertheless sees no necessary contradiction between belief and evolution. Or any other science for that matter. Although the findings of science that I would accept certainly may have negetive implications for certain specific religious models, as you point out, that's true for theists and deists as well. Or at least, it's true for some of them.
And my position is the same sitting here quietly alone in my chair contemplating as it is while writing this message for public consumption. Frankly, I'd be insulted if someone were to suggest that that is just a big fat lie. Dennett doesn't get to speak for me any more than Dembski does.
Posted by: Dave S.
| May 11, 2006 12:38 PM
The charge is so easy to make--"Well, you're just saying that because the camera's on"--that Bruce Chapman has to know it can be thrown right back in his face.
Maybe Kent Hovind says in public what Bruce Chapman dares say only in private.
Posted by: Jim Anderson
| May 11, 2006 12:55 PM
Jim wrote:
Sure. The difference, of course, is that when we accuse the ID crowd of saying one thing to one group and something different to another group, we have the actual quotes to back it up. They really do say something completely different in front of a church group than if they're in front of scientists. There's lots of evidence for that.
Posted by: Ed Brayton
| May 11, 2006 1:08 PM
Nowhere in the Guardian article does Dennett say that evolutionary biology disproves God, he only says that it disproves the idea of a creator God.
It seems to me that his and Dawkins' complaint is that the compatibilists aren't careful enough to delineate just how big their tent is. And to a certain extent I think that is fair.
Does that criticism justify the amount of heat that has been generated (on all sides)? I don't think so.
Posted by: K Klein
| May 11, 2006 1:11 PM
Sounds like yet another case of projection to me.
Posted by: pough
| May 11, 2006 1:24 PM
I empathize. I've also been accused of insincerity, though not in such a public way. I've had fellow Christians tell me I can't possibly be honest in my support of science, including evolution. And I've had colleagues at the school where I taught for thirty years tell me that I can't possibly really be one of "those Christians." Disagreement is one thing, but being accused of being a liar, however phrased, is something else entirely.
Posted by: Julia
| May 11, 2006 1:37 PM
On a political-argument thread where I hang out -- although it's the intellectual equivalent of shooting fish in a barrel to argue with dittoheads -- the troglodytes frequently put words in the mouths of the liberals, and when asked to link to proof, have actually responded that just because someone has never expressed that opinion doesn't mean that he doesn't hold said opinion.
Perhaps the IDiots are so used to changing their positions depending on the audience that they believe everybody else does the same. That Dennett apparently believes this of our side saddens me.
Posted by: Pieter B
| May 11, 2006 1:40 PM
Ed,
In discussing and debating various issues it can be incredibly difficult (for me, at least) to see things from the opposing point of view. Our exchange, and its aftermath, from a couple of years ago enlightened me to, among other things, the importance of this point. While I certainly do not agree with the conclusions you, Eugenie Scott, Ken Miller, Rob Pennock, et. al., make regarding the compatibility of evolution and faith, I do agree that any accusations made against another person should be based on direct evidence, and not on unwarranted, fabricated, or fanciful bases.
Rusty Lopez
Posted by: ImagoArt
| May 11, 2006 1:41 PM
Rusty-
It can be difficult for any of us to step outside our positions and try and see things from another's point of view. As angry as I was when you initially made that accusation, you earned my respect by learning from it and apologizing. I wish more people on both sides could reach that point.
Posted by: Ed Brayton
| May 11, 2006 1:45 PM
What's going on here is a massive equivocation on the word "god". Everybody picks the high-level dichotomy: "atheism" vs. "some form of ontological commitment towards something that the believer chooses to label 'god'". But in terms of belief-clusters, the difference between one self-avowed believer and another may be huge. Remember that the Romans called the early Christians "atheists"....
Personally, I style myself as an atheist because there is nothing that I believe exists that I choose to label 'god'. Of course there are plenty of things that I do believe exist that other people have chosen to label 'god', but I prefer not to play the equivocation game.
When a non-atheist challenges my professed atheism, my response is always, "So many people have used the word 'god' in so many ways that I don't know what you mean by 'god'. Do you mean 'sol invictus', or 'Odin', or 'Osiris', or 'the god of the Pentateuch', or 'infinite mind', or 'Gaia'? Define your god, and I'll tell you if I believe in it."
Posted by: geoff
| May 11, 2006 4:11 PM
Let me say up front that I think the Dawkins/Dennett view is much closer to the truth than say the Miller view. That being said you can construct a belief system out of anything and allow it to encompass everyything. The point is would such a system be even remotely coherent let alone sensible? Why would one accept such a system or attempt to incorporate it into a belief system your born into at all? Why not quesion the belief system instead of the science? It seems people go about this in reverse. They presume their belief system true(for unsound reasons typically) and then try to fit things into it.
I have read all the rationalizations of evolution with Christianity and find them wanting. Now is this true for all theist systems. Of course not. Judaism, Buddism, even Islam have less problems incorporating it. But Christianity I'm afraid is a tough sell. You can do it, and it's been done but it takes alot of rationalization and compartmentalizing. Which many of the religious have already done anyway.
Thats part of the problem. People say there not true Christians or this and that but thats just 'one true Scotsman' again and again. A favorite target around here are the fundies, and while I disagree with them their belief structure in regard to origins and the linear nature of the theology it raises is logical. Evoluton does real damage to this and sets the religion awash in a sea of problems. The simple fact is it makes the religion virtually unrecognizable to Joe six-pack and compels apologists to rationalize that which is likely untrue.
I don't see a reason to be angry one way or the other. When people start talking about believing in God they need to specify which one.
Posted by: Chance
| May 11, 2006 4:19 PM
A person who believe that evolution and theism are compatible is not a friend; he is not an ally.
The collections of facts that science creates may or may not be incompatible with the doctrines of a religion. Those collections are changeable and transitory. They are fundamental.
It's the scientific method which is incompatible with all religions, regardless of their doctrines. That method is not transitory, and it is not changeable. It is fundamental to the essence of science. And it does NOT permit theism.
Faith and reason are mutually exclusive. Pick one.
Posted by: Caledonian
| May 11, 2006 10:57 PM
How is the scientific method incompatible with religion?
Posted by: Matthew
| May 11, 2006 11:36 PM
Your kidding right?
Posted by: Chance
| May 11, 2006 11:53 PM
So the correct answer is not, "Your [sic] kidding right" but "What exactly do you mean by 'religion'?" If you can get a coherent answer to that question, good luck....
Posted by: geoff
| May 12, 2006 12:05 AM
It's the scientific method which is incompatible with all religions, regardless of their doctrines. That method is not transitory, and it is not changeable. It is fundamental to the essence of science. And it does NOT permit theism. Faith and reason are mutually exclusive. Pick one.
Only if your definition of truth is confined to data gathered through exercise of the third act of the mind (reason alone). Ed has just made it clear that science and theism are NOT incompatible. . .and yet here you come demanding an absolute response, pick faith or reason.
At what point did the method divorce itself from its founder, religion? (recall that scientific inquiry, as early exemplified by John Harvard, was to better understand God's creation, and using the Method to do such). I cannot see the logic in your demand.
Posted by: compass
| May 12, 2006 12:14 AM
I'm always a little bit puzzled by people who say things like 'pick faith or reason' and then act surprised when most people choose faith. That's the whole point, isn't it?
Posted by: gengar
| May 13, 2006 4:17 AM
These are not mutually exclusive positions. I believe all of the above, and Dennett most likely does too.
Posted by: Gretchen
| May 13, 2006 8:57 AM
I think that rather misses the point. A given religious belief may or may not be compatible with an assertion produced by the scientific method -- but accepting the assertion while rejecting the method used to produce it is nonsensical, and the nature of religion is not compatible with the scientific method at all.
Science is incompatible with religious belief. Whether a specific scientific doctrine is compatible with a specific religious doctrine is irrelevant.
Posted by: Caledonian
| May 13, 2006 10:21 AM
I had to comment on this topic again because I have been going back and reading Dennett, and it keeps bothering me. Nowhere have I seen Dennett explicitly say that evolution proves that God does not exist.
There is a problem in a lack of distinctions here. What does it mean to say that evolution "leads to" atheism? That strikes me as a subjective statement-- obviously it doesn't lead to atheism for everybody. I know Dawkins says it led him, but I don't recall him saying that it leads everyone similarly. He'd have to be daft to make such a statement, since the counter-evidence is staring him in the face.
Is evolution logically incompatible with theism? In some cases, yes. Arguably in the case of the typical conception of the Christian god, yes. But an idea being logically incoherent is certainly not a sufficient barrier to people finding it convincing.
The thing about Dennett and Dawkins is simply that they are happy to point out the specific aspects of evolution that make belief in God-- in its typical form, the creator God, the "omni" God-- problematic. So the beliefs may be compatible, but they are not automatically, intuitively, easily compatible. I think this is something which needs to be acknowledged. The statement "Evolution is compatible with theism" is otherwise far too ambiguous.
Posted by: Gretchen
| May 15, 2006 5:57 AM
Science is incompatible with any experimentally unverified or unfalsifiable article of faith regarding some particular aspect of the universe. Science is totally compatible with efforts to answer metaphysical questions that, by definition, are not within the realm of possible scientific inquiry. So when a religionist makes some claim about the world that science has falsified, he is flat-wrong. But the scientist may choose to believe whatever he wishes and for whatever reason he wishes (preferably constrained by as much reason and common sense as possible) when it comes to those ultimate questions which science is unable to answer.
Posted by: Chuck
| May 15, 2006 1:59 PM