Jerry Coyne and P. Z. Myers, those little scamps, are kvetching about the NCSE again. It seems that the NCSE posted a link to this series of videos defending the compatibility of evolution and Christianity. Here is the NCSE's post:
Interested in exploring the issues raised by science and faith? A free webcast series promises to assemble “thirty of today's most inspiring Christian leaders and esteemed scientists for a groundbreaking dialogue on how an evolutionary worldview can enrich your life, deepen your faith, and bless our world.” To be broadcast throughout December 2010 and January 2011, “Evolutionary Christianity -- Conversations at the Leading Edge of Faith” includes interviews with NCSE Supporter Kenneth R. Miller, discussing “Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul,” as well as Ian Barbour, John Cobb, Michael Dowd, John F. Haught, Karl W. Giberson, Owen Gingerich, Denis Lamoureux, John Polkinghorne, John Shelby Spong, Charles H. Townes, and a host of further scientists and scholars who regard their acceptance of evolution as expanding and enriching their faith.
Jerry got the ball rolling with a post entitled “NCSE Becomes BioLogos.” BioLogos, recall, is an organization that promotes the consistency of evolution with evangelical Christianity. Jerry writes:
The NCSE should stop promoting this nonsense. Clearly, the panjandrums there have made an explicit decision that they'll best further the teaching of evolution by cozying up to Christians, even if those Christians (like Kevin Kelly) have a completely teleological and unscientific view of what evolution is. It seems as if they don't care what kind of evolution is endorsed, just so long as it's called “evolution.” God directed it toward certain ends? That's okay! Evolution is “undirected” and “purposeless”? No, we can't have that, even if it's true: might scare the Christians!For what is an organization profited, if it shall gain the whole world, and lose its own soul?
P. Z. posted similar thoughts:
The problem is that the NCSE is not neutral on atheism vs. religion, but has clearly taken a side in preferring one particularly fuzzy, liberal, soft version of Christianity as its 'acceptable' religious belief. I have a preference for it myself -- it's what I was brought up in, and I think the country would be in far better shape if there was more widespread support for a faith that quietly defers to science on material matters and supported progressive ethical values -- but that does not justify exclusively endorsing it, especially since I think promoting atheism would have even better consequences for the nation. If the NCSE is to be respected as an honest broker, supporting only better science education, it can't do so by this weird sectarian favoritism.
What raises hackles is that once again NCSE is caught promoting a cult event, a group of theologians and preachers gathering to babble incompetently about evolution. As usual, they're being selective: Spong and Giberson and their ilk will always get a thumbs-up from the NCSE, but they don't seem to appreciate that they are almost as great a minority as atheists, and that supporting this one slippery version of Christianity is not going to suddenly win over the majority to their side. The fact that most of the participants at this conference are generally nice people is not a reason to argue that they're right.
Over at the Panda's Thumb, Richard Hoppe offers a counterpoint.
I generally consider myself pretty touchy about intrusions of religion in places it doesn't belong, but in this case I just don't see it. It looks to me like all the NCSE did was post a link to some videos that are likely to be of interest to a large segment of their membership. For what it's worth, I might want to watch some of those videos myself. What's the problem? I see nothing in the brief post to suggest the NCSE is endorsing the specific views of the speakers. If the post had said something like, “Contrary to the demented ravings of certain atheist dumbasses there is no conflict between evolution and Christianity. Go watch these videos and learn the TRUTH!” then I think Jerry and P. Z. would have a point. As it is, to attack a pretty tactfully worded announcement with such vitriol seems a bit unfair.
From a strategic standpoint the bigger worry is that people will watch the videos, notice the manifest inadequacies of their arguments, and come away believing more firmly than ever that evolution and Christianity are incompatible. That, at any rate, is the effect such things usually have on me.
If we are to go looking for trouble we can pose a hypothetical. Suppose a group of atheist luminaries got together and produced a series of videos explaining precisely why evolution and Christianity are incompatible. Such a series would certainly be of interest to large segments of the NCSE membership (not just atheists, I would assume) and could be linked to in a manner similar to the above. Would they link? For myself, I'll worry about it when it happens.
There is a real line that is sometimes crossed in these discussions, and that is where we should focus our attention. It is the line between saying, “Many Christians accept evolution,” which is true and relevant, and saying “Only religious fundamentalists and fanatical atheists think science and faith are at odds,” which is false and unserious. It is the difference between the reasonable statement that it is poor strategy to fight local political battles by sending in polarizing figures who will sidetrack the discussion, and the unreasonable statement that atheists should only express themselves in terms so tame and milquetoast that there is little danger of anyone noticing they are speaking at all.
There are times when it becomes sadly necessary to argue, perhaps heatedly, with our friends. But we should not be looking for excuses to do so.
- Log in to post comments
The issue that Profs. Myers and Coyne raise is that there is, apparently, only one practicing biologist, Ken Miller, amongst the lecturers. Prof. Miller, by the way is not an evolutionary biologist (he's a cell biologist). I think they have a legitimate point here. It would seem that having 29 out of 30 individuals making a statement about evolutionary biology while not being in the field is a trifle much. This would be equivalent to having 30 individuals making a statement about an issue in astrophysics with 29 not being physicists and the 30th being a solid state physicist.
SLC --
But it seems to me that the speakers are mostly addressing religious questions, and not scientific questions. The subject is not the latest developments in evolutionary biology, but the intersection between evolution and religion. Also, I get the impression the videos have more to do with personal perspectives, as opposed to presenting facts. So I don't see a big problem with the line up of speakers, relative to the purposes the videos seem meant to serve.
On the other hand people watching the videos might start to wonder why the producers of the videos were unable to find many actual evolutionary biologists for their line up...
But it seems to me that the speakers are mostly addressing religious questions, and not scientific questions etc etc...
... So then why is the National Center for Science Education promoting it?
ERV -
They're promoting it because religious questions are front and center in the battle over science education. Obviously.
As it turns out, they aren't promoting it. One of the guys running it got confused over the difference between "We'll tell people" and "We'll sponsor"...
See comment by Michael Dowd (2nd to last at this time)here
Jason, Abbie asked a legitimate and important question, one that deserves more than a dismissive non-response.
Jason: "[...] NCSE posted a link to this series of videos defending the compatibility of evolution and Christianity."
If you're trying to represent Coyne's and Myers' argument, you should say "...evolution and a particular minority view of Christianity."
You didn't address this and it's a main point both Coyne and Myers are making.
I suppose if this were the first and only time the NCSE has been charged with promoting that same sectarianism, Myers and Coyne's stridency might to some seem reactionary--as if they were flying off the handle--but it's not a first. Some might describe it as a trend.
I'm also unsure as to the target audience for the vids. Is it people who don't know very much evolutionary biology AND who haven't made up their minds about how literal they read their holy book: teens in other words? Or maybe people who are both apathetic about religion and science.
Not silly at all.
I'd be happier with PZ's "kvetching" if it were not so hypocritical.
PZ used to post a lot of science and a bit of ranting. Now it's the other way around. I realize that his controversial stance brings readers to sci blogs, which is why he gets away with it, but for him to chide NCSE for not keeping a tight focus on science when he doesn't do so himself is a bit much.
He used to post scientific topics regularly. Now he regularly posts atheist rants and squeezes in the occasional science when he can find the time (and, yes, I'm an atheist).
Technically it's his blog and he can post whatever he wants, but why post on science blogs if your primary focus isn't going to be science? And why bitch about what NCSE is doing when he isn't himself doing it?
"I'd be happier with PZ's "kvetching" if it were not so hypocritical.
PZ used to post a lot of science and a bit of ranting. Now it's the other way around..."
Hmmm... last time I checked, PZ's little section of SciBlogs was listed under the "Politics" section. Seems to me that PZ's "rants" are entirely apropos.
I'm also unsure as to the target audience for the vids. Is it people who don't know very much evolutionary biology AND who haven't made up their minds about how literal they read their holy book: teens in other words? Or maybe people who are both apathetic about religion and science.nice
Jason: If we are to go looking for trouble we can pose a hypothetical. Suppose a group of atheist luminaries got together and produced a series of videos explaining precisely why evolution and Christianity are incompatible. Such a series would certainly be of interest to large segments of the NCSE membership (not just atheists, I would assume) and could be linked to in a manner similar to the above. Would they link? For myself, I'll worry about it when it happens.
My guess is even if they linked to it, they certainly wouldn't highlight it. That has to do with mission. NCSE is trying to reach a set of people who (i) have been told by religious leaders that their religion is incompatible with evolutionary science, and who (ii) have tentatively rejected evolution because of the perceived incompatibility.
Now, pointing out that many scientists agree with those religious leaders would be factually accurate, but utterly useless for changing the minds of their intended audience. Pointing out that many scientists disagree with those religious leaders is also factually accurate but far more relevant to what they are trying to do.
When someone claims good christains can't beleve X, you refute that argument by showing them good christians who believe X. You don't spend your time showing them christians who believe not-X or atheists who believe not-X. Neutrality is preserved as long as you are not making an argument about what God is or what flavor of christianity is the right flavor. Your opponents have based their entire position on the proposition that a certain flavor can't possibly exist. Pointing out that it does, in fact, exist is just smart counter-argument. It does not mean you think its the right flavor. It is difficult to imagine Genie Scott thinking any flavor of christianity is the right flavor given that she's an atheist.
PZ has to pick silly fights. He's of the same opinion as fundamentalists, that science and religion are inherently and completely incompatible. A major plank of that platform, politically if not logically, is that religious people reject evolution, if the creationists lose ground to sensible religious people he loses a chunk of his impetus to call people "STUPID!!1!" and many of his readers will care less about his anti-stupid religious people screeds.
Hello,
You make an excellent point. I think it is very important to view the value of any argument through the perception of intent. It is my opinion that the argument against evolution can only be perceived as a political reaction - evolution does not threaten the principles of Christianity, however, it can be perceived as questioning the authority of it's institutions.
I view our ability to reason as a trait, like our ability to grab a stick. Sometimes we use that stick thoughtfully, and with understanding. But, sometimes we use that stick reactively, out of emotional reflex to cover fear and insecurity, without control or discipline. What i would like to see more of, is people applying the foundational principles of Christianity - you know, the ones that promote patience, discipline, and civility in our interactive behaviors (the whole turning the other cheek and forgiving trespassers thing) - to our ability to reason and debate.
have a good day
Craig
How does the NCSE know that evolution is compatible with Christianity? Some theologians say it is and others say it isn't - how can one determine who is correct? Can one pick the proper version of Christianity just on the basis of evolution acceptance? Is it really that easy?
Craig: "[...] evolution does not threaten the principles of Christianity, however, it can be perceived as questioning the authority of it's institutions."
And religious principles are derived from and maintained by religious authority. And to a lesser extent revelation. Unless I missed something this seems like a circular argument.
How does the NCSE know that evolution is compatible with Christianity? Some theologians say it is and others say it isn't - how can one determine who is correct?
They aren't trying to speak for Jesus. They're trying to help people who have only or primarily been exposed to the latter type of theologian become more aware of the former type, so that they might consider the former type's argument. A lot of fundamentalist preachers seem to rely on a No True Scotsman argument against compatibility. Whether you think theism and science are ultimately compatible or not, ALL of us should be opposing use of the Scotsman to win an argument, even when we agree in principle with the guy using it.
Gillt,.. was religion born from authority? or was religion born from the most effective ways of teaching successful behaviors? I would argue that if religion was born from authority, our history would be very different... so I do not believe my argument is circular. What is circular, however, is the cycle of wisdom and knowledge being claimed by authority as property. A wise person shares valuable information that an institutions eventually claims to be their own,.. and then the source of it's authority. Over time, the institution grows decadent and people reject the wisdom along with the institution. And religious institutions are not the only ones guilty of treating knowledge and wisdom as property.... as the source of authority.
Have a nice day,
Craig
eric,
but how do they know they aren't leading people astray?
Michael --
I think you're reading more into the announcement than is really there. I don't see anything saying that the views of the speakers represent the “correct” approach to Christianity or the “correct” relationship between science and religion. (For that matter, I don't think the speakers themselves necessarily agree on those points. John Shelby Spong's version of Christianity is certainly different from John Polkinghorne's, for example.) The announcement just says that if you're interested in the question of science and faith here are some videos of prominent people discussing the issue.
I just don't see anything wrong with that.
Jason,
NCSE is favoring those Christians who support evolution and only those who do so. Isn't this making a theological decision?
Craig--
I think you're confounding civilization and religion in your rhetorical question.
The judeo-christian religions started as cults with a concentration of power coming from a witch doctor or two who made in and out group distinctions, tribalism in other words. I think, like you, that religions evolve by adding or shedding customs and traditions across time, and it's not always for the betterment of humanity. But that in no way precludes its justifications for doing so are always appeals to authority and revelation. Sometimes religion has been beneficial to civilization and oftentimes it has been detrimental. So if by successful behaviors, you mean promoting liberty, tolerance, freedom and equality then Christianity does not necessarily evolved toward those, as history has shone.
Michael Fugate: but how do they know they aren't leading people astray?
How is the claim 'there are christians that say their faith is compatible with evolution' leading people astray? As far as I can tell, that is a simple fact. Whether one thinks theose christians are theologically correct or incorrect, it remains a fact that they exist. NCSE spends more time pointing out this group than any other group for perfectly rational resons: because they oppose fundamentalist preachers who very often claim no such christians exist (or they aren't true christians).
NCSE is favoring those Christians who support evolution and only those who do so. Isn't this making a theological decision?
How so? They are not making any claim about god, or jesus, or which versions of christianity will send you to heaven and which will send you to hell. They are pointing out the range of christian beliefs includes folks who think theism and evolution are compatible.
When someone claims 'there are no black swans,' you refute them by pointing to a black swan. You don't point to the white ones - they already know about those. And you don't point to a chocolate lab either (representing incompatibilists of other faiths, or none), because while it may also be a black animal, non-swans are irrelevant to the argument.
eric,
They aren't just saying that these Christians exist - you can't be that naive - and that can't be only what is involved. Just pop over to http://ncse.com/religion and see what Peter Hess, their resident theologian, says. I am quite sure that many theologians would find his views to be wrong. It appears to me that they basically think that changing your religious views is not unlike changing your hairstyle. Look, there are people with mullets - it must be cool.
The NCSE promotes theism-friendly evolution and discredits creationism, both of which fall under the range of Christian belief. So only in a trivial sense is NCSE pointing out a range of Christian beliefs. And this range they promote, accommodating though it is, often gets evolution wrong (e.g., Kevin Kelly).
Gillt, Are there any examples of a civilizations emerging and evolving without a religion associated to it?
I don't disagree with your views on the institutions of religion, but I think you need to look deeper into history and the formation of communities to understand my point. There are actually two forms of authority; the first is by force and the second is by assistance. Authority by force is the standard alpha male sort of thing that we see in wolf packs - the strongest and most brutal is the boss. Authority by assistance is most likely where reason came from, in direct response to authority by force. For example, in a clan that was ruled by a dominant male, there came a person who was smarter, but not stronger, than the rest and slowly gained position by helping people with their troubles. The Alpha Male of Force noticed and became threatened.. thus, the battle between Force and Assistance began. And, as with all evolutionary competition, over time each side absorbs traits of their opponent. Force will adapt things from Assistance and vice versa. For factual examples of this, simply turn on your TV. Every battle we see between progressive academics and corporations, politicians, and religious institutions are replete with examples of one side trying the use the tactics of the other side to gain dominance. Corporations pretending like they have data that refutes climate change. Religions acting like ID is a valid theory. And people like Richard Dawkins using a valid theory to project brutal and demeaning force onto people that disagree with them.
On this planet, everything can either be good or bad... depending on how we choose to use it. Nuclear energy, democracy, and capitalism to name the most obvious. And the choice is ours as to whether we will be good or evil... whether we choose to use the tools at hand to provide assistance, or to exert force.
From my perspective, it is important that when we view the evolution of civilization, we do not look only at the fossils of force, but also the fossils of assistance... and see how they fought back and forth.
Have a good night.
Craig
I don't object to it for myself, but favoring a particular type of Christian as against others is making a decision about theology, or theological decision.
Specifically, the theological decision is to not favor this view: The evangelical fundamentalists say correctly that in evolution there is no fall. If there is no fall, there is no need for a redeemer, Jesus. By that view, evolution and Christianity are incompatible.
The favored type of Christians are attempting to express quite a trick. I would be interested in the various ways they propose to do it, also why they propose to do it.
Whatever they do they will have to embody together what are inherent contradictions, as the distinguished British theologian Leslie Weatherhead did (or attempted) with his book, "The Agnostic Christian."
The danger to be avoided is that religion will engulf science as a sort of other religion, calling it 'science education' as in NCSE. As you know, the possibility has already been foreseen by Joseph Campbell, who favors real science but recognizes, as does Craig, the powerful forces of fantasy in man and woman, and children.
PZ and Coyne speak well for themselves, so does Jason.
"Are there any examples of a civilizations emerging and evolving without a religion associated to it?"
But that's irrelevant to my point that religion and civilization are not synonymous terms. We know that civilization can exist without religion, and religion can be a detriment to civilization. If you agree with this then what do you mean when you say "religion is borne of the most effective way to teach successful behavior."
Craig: "Authority by assistance is most likely where reason came from, in direct response to authority by force."
Citation please, because that's not apparent to me.
Your "just-so" story seems janky as well. Is there a source you got this from, like an actual case study as a way to ground it? Did the smart guy eventually gain control of the tribe? Then what's the difference between him and the meat-head?
Maybe you're using assisted authority in place of the term Republic. But what does that have to do with religious authority?
Craig: "And people like Richard Dawkins using a valid theory to project brutal and demeaning force onto people that disagree with them."
Um, what? The only interpretation I can make is that you think Dawkins is either into eugenics or is the Ayatollah of rock'n rolla.
Gillt,
Uncle!
Have a good day, and take care of yourself.
Craig
Dont we already know the answer to this (have they ever linked to anything that had this view point?)
But yes the fight is silly. NCSE is going to behave as they - knowing fully well that the people who think science and faith are incompatible aren't going to give up on science even if NCSE favors pointing accomodationists
@24: Michael, did you actually read the link you provided to me? It seems to be saying exactly what I said:
Seems to me they just acknowledged the existence of compatibilist believers, incompatibilist believers, and incompatibilist nonbelievers. They then link to a set of compatibilist believer articles, which makes perfect sense to me given my arguments above (i.e., their target is to make incompatibilist believers aware of compatibilist believer arguments.)
Seriously, what would you have them do different? Would it appease you if they took the sentence starting "And some nonbelievers argue..." and put it first? Don't tell me you're one of those guys that claim NCSE would do a better job of outreach to people who think evolution is incompatible with their religion by not mentioning compatibility or incompatibility at all!
Can you spot the difference between 'The National Center for Science Education' and 'PZ's personal blog'?
jeez
And because it makes sense to you - then it must be correct. This is the problem. Education is not common sense, it requires hypotheses, experiments and analyses to know what actually works. I have seen no evidence that the NCSE approach has any effect on understanding of evolution. If you have some, please share. Enough misconceptions about evolution are found among scientists and science teachers without clergy being involved.
Come to think of it, this reminds me of the Discovery Institute's "Dissent from Darwinism" list. If we just show people a single scientist who thinks evolution is wrong, then it must be a valid idea. The arguments themselves don't matter. If a single religious believer accepts evolution, then science and religion are instantly compatible. Who knew it was that easy?
@31
It seems (by your own statement) the NCSE acknowledges there are many viewpoints, and then picks one specific one to promote. They don't link to atheist videos, or fundamentalist christian videos. Even after acknowledging that those perspectives exist. You say it yourself. This is obviously promoting one very specific brand of religion.
If this is "saying exactly what I said", great, but it sure looks to me like it was the opposite of what you were arguing.
BTW, Jason, I share your lukewarmness to whether or not the link posted was that big a deal. I just think that most religious folk, liberal evolution-believers or not, generally get the theory wrong. And they often get it wrong as a direct result of the influence of religion. Is the question do we give up scientifically correct evolutionary theory in favor of religiously comfortable/compatible evolution-ish theory? Idealism vs pragmatism.
I think; Suppose a group of atheist luminaries got together and produced a series of videos explaining precisely why evolution and Christianity are incompatible..... and could be linked to in a manner similar to the above. Would they link? For myself, I'll worry about it when it happens.
I would argue that no, they would not. I may have read too much into it, but NCSE members seem to be saying (for example, http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/12/the_battle_over_ncse.php#com…) that anyone who makes one of their list of creationist claims (including the claim that there is a link between belief in evolution and atheism) is someone they're arguing against. They don't appear to see people who argue incompatibility of evolution and religion as their allies.
It seems (by your own statement) the NCSE acknowledges there are many viewpoints, and then picks one specific one to promote.
Right...because only one specific viewpoint is being attacked by their opponents...and its not yours.
Seriously guys, how hard is the 'there are no black swans' argument to understand? You refute it by pointing at a black swan. You don't refute it by pointing at white swans, or a black duck.
You are not the black swan. Theistic evolutionists are. If you are taking offense at the fact that NCSE isn't pointing at you, you are missing the point of their argument entirely. And "I don't see why they keep pointing at the black swan" misses the point of the opponent's argument entirely, too.