Pharyngula

Posted by: James F | June 11, 2009 7:27 PM

It's frustrating that this argument is taking place across half a dozen different blogs. I'd love to see one big forum where the main players could have a discussion.

Posted by: Geoff | June 11, 2009 7:35 PM

Oh, PZ I know how hard it is to be on the 'qui vive' 24/7, but please don't even copy the creotards 'evolutionist'. It's like calling a physicist a 'gravitationalist' or a chemist a 'valencist'. It's just a mark of idiocy. We must never, ever do it, even in quotes, without a tag to point out that it's only for morons.
I know you didn't mean it really:-)

Posted by: recovering catholic | June 11, 2009 7:35 PM

This is the first response by Miller that I'm aware of since he was "called out" by Jerry Coyne. I was beginning to think that Miller was just going to ignore the concerns of scientists who correctly worry about important popular science writers' continued and futile attempts to reconcile religion with science.
Like so many of us, I'm experiencing a cognitive dissonance knowing that Miller is an important science advocate while also realizing that he's a devout catholic. Other situations like Dover are going to arise. It would be best if an atheistic scientist testified against teaching creationism in public schools next time.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 11, 2009 7:42 PM

Miller is reduced to embracing Dawkins and Carl Sagan, while claiming Coyne's supporters are Bill Buckingham, Don McLeroy, and Phillip Johnson. Miller writes a book titled Finding Darwin's God, but somehow he can claim this has nothing to do with mingling theism with evolution. It all reads as something rather disingenuous.

huh?

Posted by: Holbach | June 11, 2009 7:51 PM

No matter how often and vociferously Miller engages the bulwarks of science, he still believes in an imaginary god and will forever be regarded as disingenuous in the least, and a religionist posing in the guise of a scientist at the worst. To him and others of that despicable stance I hold in low regard and even worse.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | June 11, 2009 7:56 PM

He's pointing out that those organizations have not been neutral, but have effectively endorsed a specific position favoring theistic evolution. He and I both have said that they should not demand atheistic purity, but that they should either stop making one-sided arguments for fluffy, boring, 'innocuous', and scientifically unsupportable theistic evolution, or they should be more careful to accurately represent the range of views of scientists, which includes atheists.

Oh, I don't think that making NCSE's education for science into a debate makes any more sense than turning biology classes into a debate does. It dilutes the focus on science and its productive methods and results, giving ammunition to the people who say it's all about atheism (the moment the NCSE admits that evolution might lead to atheism that will be what churches tell their congregations about the NCSE), and turns it into an issue of religion.

To put it starkly, the reason the NCSE tilts toward theistic evolution is that they're trying to mute the religious issue and to get on with presenting science. People may object, and may have good reason to, but once they're saying that science (which will be understood to be "evolution") could be the cause of atheism, they're no longer teaching about science, they're managing an ongoing debate which will generate far more heat than light. That's just reality, even if it's lamentable.

As for whether or not Miller's religion is consistent with scientific thought, I say no, but wouldn't deny its usefulness in getting people to listen to science. I made that argument, while pointing out that I can never agree that Miller's giving ultimate responsibility to god for evolution is compatible with scientific philosophy--which is an essential part of science--at Mooney's site, here:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/06/11/ken-miller-why-jerry-coyne-is-wrong/#comment-19484

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

Posted by: Tim Fuller | June 11, 2009 8:02 PM

It's frustrating that this argument is taking place across half a dozen different blogs. I'd love to see one big forum where the main players could have a discussion.

Yeah, because all the driving back and forth is killing me.

Enjoy.

Posted by: Badger3k | June 11, 2009 8:08 PM

I think Ken Miller's (empty) threat reveals just how far in the kool-ade he is. When it comes down to it, he says he'd rather live with the superstition than keep promoting sound science and reality. I don't for a minute believe he would carry through with his threat, but his comments might encourage others who would rather cling to the nursery bars than walk out into the wider world (wow, what a mix of metaphors).

And I'd keep an eye out for Spiny Norman (IIRC), a rather large hedgehog, looking for Dinsdale "Miller" Piranha.

Posted by: Michael Kingsford Gray | June 11, 2009 8:15 PM

Miller sounds scared stiff, to me at least.

Frightened that any further distancing from his fragile faith may fracture the feeble tether, and leave him fatally embarrassed.

Posted by: QrazyQat | June 11, 2009 8:22 PM

I'd like to know where Ken Miller thinks there is to go for him and other "Ardent Theists" in evolutionary studies when they run away (they aren't being "turned away" so they must be running). He's gonna stop defending science? Stop selling his best-selling textbooks? I don't believe him. First, I don't believe he's the intellectual coward he'd have to be to do so, and second, do you have any idea how much money a bestselling textbook makes?

Posted by: Sastra | June 11, 2009 8:26 PM

One can acknowledge that theistic evolution is a legitimate position, and still argue that it is an incorrect position. It is legitimate in the sense that it's not insane, or pseudoscientific, or unworthy of serious academic discussion. One might put it in the same category as postmodernism, or libertarianism, say, -- rather than lump it in with creationism or homeopathy. It's a legitimate view which may be honestly held, and taught, and put forth as an option.

But this doesn't mean that the debate is therefore over, and because theistic evolution is 'legitimate,' then any attempt to argue against it means that one is denying that it belongs in the public square, and should be marginalized. On the contrary, debates over the relationship between science and religion do belong in the public square.

Posted by: Alt Numlock | June 11, 2009 8:29 PM

Logical fact: No one can be an atheist materialist forever.

Another way of expressing it: Atheist materialism is the one philosophy that is absolutely, positively, logically guaranteed to vanish to complete irrelevance for each of its proponents.

It is, by its very nature, merely a passing fancy.

If you are right, you eventually won't be in a position to know it.

What else can one do, then, but to grasp it zealously while one still can?

Carry on!

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 11, 2009 8:35 PM

Oh, I don't think that making NCSE's education for science into a debate makes any more sense than turning biology classes into a debate does.

How is this not a case of false equivalency, Glen?

could you clarify?

It dilutes the focus on science and its productive methods and results, giving ammunition to the people who say it's all about atheism

I completely disagree with this. the people it "gives ammunition to" are the likes of Casey Luskin, who would twist his own grandmother's arms off if it would in any way even appear to support his contentions.

In fact, this IS the debate on how science itself should be presented.

the underlying question being, of course, should we as scientists present science itself as accommodating religion, or any other superstition?

because that, IS the position of Collins and Miller: that there is not only no reason NOT to, but that it's fine and dandy to do so. Some agree because they think it's good tactics in the culture war, some agree because they simply have the same opinion. However, tactics are not the issue here. It's an idealistic discussion, perhaps, but it's still one worth having.

Just to be clear, the idea that science itself is incompatible with belief is a separate question than is being addressed in these debates, and is obviously answered by the very existence of Miller himself.

Posted by: Sastra | June 11, 2009 8:42 PM

Alt Numlock #24 wrote:

Another way of expressing it: Atheist materialism is the one philosophy that is absolutely, positively, logically guaranteed to vanish to complete irrelevance for each of its proponents.

Whether the people who believe something stop believing it when they die has absolutely no impact on whether the belief itself is true or not. This is a completely irrelevant point. Not everything circles around our individual selves.

Technically, if there is no afterlife, then you won't hold any of your beliefs when you no longer exist either -- including the belief that you will always exist. But that says nothing about whether there's an afterlife or not. It's not an argument, either way.

Posted by: David Wiener | June 11, 2009 8:43 PM

Well, obviously Miller needs to pray harder, 'cause you still don't agree with him!

Posted by: SC, OM | June 11, 2009 8:52 PM

Oh, I don't think that making NCSE's education for science into a debate makes any more sense than turning biology classes into a debate does.

Glen, I don't know if you were around for any of that discussion, but the position was that the NCSE was presenting - especially on its "theism outreach" or whatever page and the book recommendations there (will try to find the links to those threads) - a position biased toward theism. I think the favored suggestion was to omit that section, but it was also suggested that it could be expanded to include other viewpoints. IIRC, someone at the NCSE acknowledged that it was in fact problematic. Has it been changed?

The desperation of Coyne's drive to link any sort of theism with scientific distortion is particularly clear in another objection he's made just about every time he's complained about my "accommodationist" views. As he puts it, this is my tendency to argue that evolution was bound to produce intelligent, reflective, self-aware beings. Curiously, he finds that argument even in places where I do not make it. One example was a guest column I wrote for The Guardian in the spring of 2009. Commenting on popular resistance to evolution, I wrote that evolution tells us that:

" . . . the human presence is not a mistake of nature or a random accident, but a direct consequence of the characteristics of the universe. What evolution tells us is that we are part of a grand, dynamic, and ever-changing fabric of life that covers our planet."

...

The best part about the retreat that follows is that he's now stuck with it, even among his fellow Catholics. "God's creation" means to him some probabilistic argument about the possibility of intelligent life (by no means us, necessarily) somewhere in the universe. This was likely, though how likely we can't know, even though we humans specifically are accidental. Nothing beyond this. Love it.

Can't wait for Coyne's response.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | June 11, 2009 8:55 PM

How is this not a case of false equivalency, Glen?

There are various arguments against "equal time" and all such nonsense. Obviously the compelling legal one does not apply to the case of the NCSE, which is free to do what it will.

Nevertheless, one often ends up arguing with IDiots/creationists (with less prejudiced people really the target) about how futile it is to turn biology classes into debating sessions, since science education is not about debate. And that aspect is reasonably equivalent, because the NCSE is also about teaching in the main (not necessarily science alone, but science, freedom, and the legalities). The pragmatic argument against ID is that it prevents education (no doubt the goal of the DI, at least), and the pragmatic argument against NCSE sponsoring competing messages about religion is also that it prevents their goal of education

Likewise, you want to turn this into a debate about how science is presented, and the NCSE wants to present science effectively. Thus their attempts to mute the religious issue.

You want to fight religion? Do so. That is not the goal of the NCSE, or indeed, of myself. Good science alone will tend to weaken religion, if it does win out, but my goals are primarily science and our freedoms regardless.

Tactics, of course, are entirely the issue here, both because that was my concern in my comments (not so much in the linked comments), and because at least Mooney is mostly concerned about those. The "debate" going on is about Miller, and other theistic evolutionists, and the reason it is happening is ultimately because Mooney reported on Barbara Forrest's talk which argued a little about philosophy, and a lot about tactics.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

Posted by: JD | June 11, 2009 9:02 PM

Theistic evolution is the worst. The only word needed to debunk an evo-theo is: Teratology. There, I said it.

Now will the accomodationists please shove BioBogus up their "guided" asses!

Posted by: Mystyk | June 11, 2009 9:07 PM

Miller lost me on this one when he lowered himself to quote-mining:

Curiously, for someone so eager to defend Darwinian theory, Coyne never tells his readers that Charles Darwin was once asked the very same question — and that he gave a quite different answer. In an 1879 letter to John Fordyce, Darwin wrote: "It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist." Absurd? Apparently this Darwin fellow must have been an accommodationist, too, at least by Coyne's standards.

No theist himself, as he made clear in that letter, Darwin nonetheless realized that it was certainly possible for Christians to see the evolutionary process as consistent with their faith. As well he should have. His most enthusiastic proponent in the United States was the "eminent botanist" Asa Gray of Harvard. Gray, as Darwin knew, was a sincere and committed Christian, and Darwin was not about to reject Gray's strong scientific and personal support. Nor did he find it dishonest or logically inconsistent.

Of course, the first mistake he makes is in using the dismissive "Darwinism" term to refer to all of evolution - as if there has been zero advancement since 1859.

But, more to the point, let's look at what Charlie actually wrote:

Dear Sir

It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist.— You are right about Kingsley. Asa Gray, the eminent botanist, is another case in point— What my own views may be is a question of no consequence to any one except myself.— But as you ask, I may state that my judgment often fluctuates. Moreover whether a man deserves to be called a theist depends on the definition of the term: which is much too large a subject for a note. In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.— I think that generally (& more and more so as I grow older) but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind.

Dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin

So, Miller quotes the very first sentence, and ignores the rest. Darwin sets up an initial proposition, then immediately shows that compatibility is entirely dependent on your definition of "theist" - it's not a default position for Christianity as Miller tries to assume. Of course, Charles also says that science does best to remain agnostic on the issues of even the most watered-down deistic "theism," which is exactly one of Coyne's points with respect to NCSE and NAS that Miller denies is important.

Posted by: JoshS, Official SpokesGay | June 11, 2009 9:09 PM

Glen Davidson wrote:

Likewise, you want to turn this into a debate about how science is presented, and the NCSE wants to present science effectively. Thus their attempts to mute the religious issue.

No. Glen, other posters have explained this before; I don't understand why this is such a stumbling block. It's not about NCSE "presenting science effectively." It's about NCSE's clear, demonstrated bias that science is compatible with religious belief.

Glen, I get that you differ from my point of view, or that of others, about whether this is the right thing to do, or whether it's effective. Granted. But you (and all of us) have a duty to be intellectually honest. You need to acknowledge that NCSE does have a bias in their published statements, and it's a bias toward compatibilism. This is, needless to say, a controversial position, and it's not fair for you to fail to acknowledge it, and act as if the rest of us are making things up. We're not.

Again, disagree on the tactical wisdom of this approach, of course. But don't keep denying it for what it is. That's not fair.

Posted by: Tulse | June 11, 2009 9:13 PM

One can acknowledge that theistic evolution is a legitimate position, and still argue that it is an incorrect position. It is legitimate in the sense that it's not insane, or pseudoscientific, or unworthy of serious academic discussion. One might put it in the same category as postmodernism, or libertarianism, say, -- rather than lump it in with creationism or homeopathy.

I really don't understand the distinction you're making, Sastra -- why is theistic evolution somehow more legitimate than creationism or homeopathy? All three "theories" are undermined by what is known about the physical mechanisms involved in the domains they inhabit. And frankly, a priori I think it is far less implausible that water might be impacted in some way by prior contact with material substances than a completely immaterial intelligence has influenced the physical world for billions of years specifically to produce humans as the outcome. Homeopathy at least could involve a natural, physical mechanism, whereas theistic evolution by definition involves the supernatural.

Posted by: SC, OM | June 11, 2009 9:18 PM

If this is indeed Miller's position, how is it "theistic evolution"? Where's the theism part come into his understanding of evolution? I can see "theist and evolutionist," but not "theistic evolution."

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space | June 11, 2009 9:51 PM

Personally, I think the very term "theistic evolution" is a misnomer. The thing is that science is by its nature about naturalistic explanation. The existence of a deity is perfectly compatible with science--as long as the deity doesn't DO anything that has a manifestation in the physical world. The second a deity intervenes, though, even once, science effectively becomes impossible, because we have to wonder whether our problem has a naturalistic solution or whether it is another result of some intervention. Prediction becomes impossible, unless you want to make all science the study of divine psychology--e.g. anticipating when God will and will not intervene.

The fact that science works suggests that if deities exist, they intervene seldom if at all--that is, that the world is overwhelmingly "naturalistic".

So, what becomes of faith? It's a choice. I don't see how being a person of faith is incompatible with being a scientist. I just don't think it can have any relevance to how you do science.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | June 11, 2009 9:57 PM

You need to acknowledge that NCSE does have a bias in their published statements, and it's a bias toward compatibilism. This is, needless to say, a controversial position, and it's not fair for you to fail to acknowledge it, and act as if the rest of us are making things up. We're not.

You know, I'm here at this moment partly because I became completely disgusted with the lies of theistic evolutionists on another site. But why do I meet with such incompetent and/or dishonest statements here?

I wrote for all to see at post #12, "To put it starkly, the reason the NCSE tilts toward theistic evolution."

From the beginning I wrote of the bias, and you're clearly in the wrong when you flatly, and completely against the evidence, claim that I don't even acknowledge it.

And I'm not even so much defending the NCSE as explaining them.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 11, 2009 10:08 PM

If this is indeed Miller's position, how is it "theistic evolution"? Where's the theism part come into his understanding of evolution? I can see "theist and evolutionist," but not "theistic evolution."

I think that's why Miller's current contribution is being considered as a "retreat".

It's far more nebulous a claim than he ever made in "Finding Darwin's God", for example.

That said, while LESS specific, it actually has an even more ridiculous claim to make:

Why does science work? Why is the world around us organized in a way that makes itself accessible to our powers of logic and intellect?

Thus, Miller has backed himself into the corner of saying that the only way of answering that is to say "goddidit".

I think that this boils down to essentially the old argument of dualism, which, btw, is less specific, but essentially the same argument at the core of Collins' "Moral Law" nonsense.

seriously, I'm at a loss. Who was it that first espoused the notion of dualism? How long ago was that?

Posted by: James F | June 11, 2009 10:15 PM

In an attempt to clarify theistic evolution, consider belief/philosophy vs. practice/understanding of science:

traditional creationism:supernaturalism
intelligent design creationism:methodological supernaturalism
theistic evolution:methodological naturalism
philosophical naturalism:methodological naturalism

Posted by: Jason A. | June 11, 2009 10:18 PM

Tulse #44:

I really don't understand the distinction you're making, Sastra -- why is theistic evolution somehow more legitimate than creationism or homeopathy?

I think the distinction is that theistic evolution doesn't require you to deny known science, it only tacks on an extra framework around what we know. It's 'legitimate' in the sense that you don't have to be a denialist, you just have to make leaps not justified by the evidence.

Posted by: articulett | June 11, 2009 10:21 PM

I always feel like theistic evolutionists are trying to get atheists to "respect" their beliefs-- but to me, all magical thinking is on par with Scientology... why should I respect Miller's beliefs more than HE respects Scientology? Would he defer to Tom Cruise's claims that Thetans could be real?

Magical thinking doesn't really have a place in science. Religious belief is indistinguishable from superstitious belief as far as I can tell, and though a person is free to believe all the unfalsifiable things he wants to, he mustn't expect others to applaud him for claiming the emperor COULD be wearing magical invisible robes!

Believers in "woo" think their woo is true, and so they expect others to treat it with respect that they, themselves, would never give to most woo.

Posted by: SC, OM | June 11, 2009 10:30 PM

I hope that they'll get rid of their "theism outreach," but I don't think they'll do what PZ and Coyne want, which is to include both atheistic and theistic approaches in their speaker choices.

Oh. I thought that the path preferred by Coyne and PZ was simply to get rid of the "theism outreach" stuff, but I may well be wrong.

I usually separate portions of my posts with "***", but only the first part was directed to you. I wasn't expecting you to respond to the rest. :)

That said, I'm not quite sure I understand your point. (And actually, when I read PZ's post again, I realized that I was really just restating what he had said there.)

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 11, 2009 10:36 PM

you just have to make leaps not justified by the evidence.

..and that's the ideological problem with it when presented from the angle of science itself.

It's at best superfluous.

Posted by: Janus | June 11, 2009 10:39 PM

Here's something from Miller's rebuttal that really jumped at me:

Why is the world around us organized in a way that makes itself accessible to our powers of logic and intellect?

He couldn't possibly have made it more obvious that to him, it's reality that is organized FOR HUMANS, rather than humans that evolved to be able to survive IN REALITY.

You might as well ask why reality is organized in such a way that we can travel in it. Isn't that an amazing coincidence?

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 11, 2009 11:05 PM

I'm really intrigued by this. Is there a scientific definition of the soul? Has there been actual research done to explore how said soul may have evolved?

Um, you rather took that quote out of context. Did you try reading all of what Coyne said in that article?

bottom line:

of course not, and even from the snipet one sees Coyne equating the idea of a soul itself with the concept of "irreducible complexity".

his point was to show that one can attach the idea of "irreducible complexity" to any object, even fictional ones, and claim it "couldn't have evolved".

Hope that makes more sense, and you weren't deliberately trying to quotemine Coyne there?

I have yet to find a firm definition of what exactly the soul *is*.

obvious answer:

because it only exists as a fictional construct to begin with, and so can be endlessly re-defined as needed.

problem solved!

Posted by: Jason A. | June 12, 2009 12:10 AM

Tulse #69

Yeah, I get what you're saying, but I still think the distinction is valid somehow. Both creationism and theistic evolution fail on scientific methodology, but in different ways (denying known facts vs. tacking new 'facts' on).
And I'm not saying the line between the two is distinct either...

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 12, 2009 1:08 AM

You might as well ask why reality is organized in such a way that we can travel in it. Isn't that an amazing coincidence?

Yes, I really cannot believe Miller actually had the gall to make that argument.

I know there is a name for the logical fallacy this encompases, anyone recall what it is?

Posted by: Nils Ross | June 12, 2009 2:16 AM

I really hope accomodationists like Miller are simply trying to prevent the flare up of confrontational nastiness, and don't genuinely believe that superstitions based on nothing can ever be compatible with science based on evidence.

Posted by: tomh | June 12, 2009 2:42 AM

@ #17 Actually, there's a nutcase who has been hogging the comments threads over at Mr. Mooneys' blog calling himself Anthony McCarthy ...He also hogs the comment threads over at Mr. Rosenhouse' blog. He doesn't seem to have shown up here, although perhaps he has been previously banned.

He claims he's been banned here, (thank goodness), as he and Kwok gush all over each other on Evolutionblog.

Posted by: Michael Kingsford Gray | June 12, 2009 3:29 AM

#64: c.f. Douglas Adams' puddle.

Posted by: MadScientist | June 12, 2009 5:39 AM

Don't forget the charge that Jerry was somehow uncivil. I still have no idea how/when/where he was meant to be uncivil. If we were talking about Chris Hitchens I'd probably believe the story without checking facts, but calling Jerry Coyne uncivil is a bit like fundumbmentalists saying atheists are evil.

Posted by: Michael Kingsford Gray | June 12, 2009 5:57 AM

#81 Irene Delse One can be both a good scientist and a believer in a personal god, for instance...

That depends what one means by "good".
If it means 'intellectually honest' then claim is utter bollocks.

If it means 'accommodating to outright fraud and provable lies for short-term political expediency', then it at best a half truth.

To trust than a person is able to strictly abandon a large portion of their intellect to that part of utterly ludicrous superstition that does not impact upon science, nor perception of reality in any manner, is to trust in fairy tales.

Posted by: Kel | June 12, 2009 7:09 AM

At the point that Miller seems to be advocating (at least intellectually) I don't get why they still call it theism. It seems like little more than anthropic deism. God created the universe which unfurled itself to reveal a higher intelligence, then took that form in order to show that He exists, then went back to obscurity.

Posted by: Knockgoats | June 12, 2009 7:31 AM

The concept of the soul seems to be beyond the reach of science, since it's a metaphysical idea load of crap. - Bridget McKinney

Fixed for you. No thanks necessary!

Posted by: Ranson | June 12, 2009 8:21 AM

Is anyone else picturing Kwok hammering at the windows of the Pharyngula house, screaming to get in? He's probably reading every word of this and EXPLODING because he can't come in.

Posted by: charley | June 12, 2009 8:48 AM

@71

If anyone has any questions about the influence or participation of elves throughout history feel free to shoot them my way, I'm an expert and have a sound internet connection.

Does your expertise include the Keebler elves? I've always wondered how they produce such a high volume of product from that one hollow tree.

Posted by: Tulse | June 12, 2009 9:07 AM

none of this proves or even implies the nonexistence of deities, souls, flying spaghetti monsters... There are plenty of places for them to hide.

True, but if they are so ineffectual, why would one even bother to postulate them in the first place, unless one were in the grip of an irrational ideology?

Posted by: Jerry Coyne | June 12, 2009 9:43 AM

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 11, 2009 9:10 PM

Don't count on a response from Coyne -- he tells me he's finding the argument futile right now.

LOL

I can imagine him ripping his hair out over all the red herrings Miller used in his retort.

...and I'll bet money Coyne will indeed have a response by Monday at the latest.
________________

a. Yes I'm ripping my hair out about Miller, but more of the depilation is coming from the fact that I have a DAY JOB and can't deal with posting on an instantaneous basis.

b. Ichthyic is right; I'll post by Monday

Posted by: SC, OM | June 12, 2009 9:48 AM

b. Ichthyic is right; I'll post by Monday

Hee. And yay.

Posted by: Joe Bleau | June 12, 2009 10:37 AM

Ichthyic @53:

I think that this boils down to essentially the old argument of dualism

At the risk of being reductionist, I think that the the non-material side of the dualism coin that DesCartes and his philosophical forbears was always going on about is really basically the soul. And Heaven. And mind/consciousness (if it is something other than an emergent property of physical organisms). And 'objective' morality. And nonoverlapping magisteria. Etc. Etc.

I can't support it very well, but I'm inclined to believe that this is really just the inevitable propensity for people to try to reify the abstract (in this case, maybe it's an attempt to model the concept of infinity as geospatial?) in order to better process and understand it.

It's what philosophers like Plantinga and scientists like Miller are absolutely terrified to abandon. I think that the instinct at play here is that if naturalism is accepted, then somehow they lose their ability to be 'spiritual', and that this somehow dooms one to a bleak, nihilistic, robotic existence.

Posted by: Paco | June 12, 2009 11:56 AM

The latest creationism dustup: http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/asmussen/

Posted by: Kristian | June 12, 2009 12:55 PM

I really don't think that Miller is threatening to "take the ball and go home". He's asking that we (scientists and supporters) work together. In your post yesterday (Reaching creationists: here's the toolbox, do you know how to use the tools?) you ask "how can we wake these [creationists] up?". Well, one of the answers is the approach taken by Miller and Collins and other theistic evolutionists. Anyone who has ever tried to reason with a religious fundamentalist knows that speaking well-reasoned fact only makes them more angry and obstinate. Remember the Discovery Institute's "Wedge Strategy"? They use the appearance of science to sow doubt about evolutionary theory so that, when the time is right, they can convert the Intelligent Design believer into a God believer. If anything, PZ, I think you should be charitable to the "accommodationists" because theistic evolution is a reverse wedge strategy. Miller and Collins certainly wouldn't say that their approach helps to convert Christians to atheists, but by sowing doubt about a literal Bible and a young earth and 7-day creation, and by suggesting to Christians that it is possible to believe in Jesus and also accept an old earth and evolution by natural selection, they help to convert fundamentalist creationists into (more) rational free thinkers who embrace the findings of science. Your common enemy is the likes of the Texas school board, creationists who have power to do actual harm to science education. The enemy of your enemy is your friend.

Posted by: Paul | June 12, 2009 1:08 PM

Remember the Discovery Institute's "Wedge Strategy"? They use the appearance of science to sow doubt about evolutionary theory so that, when the time is right, they can convert the Intelligent Design believer into a God believer. If anything, PZ, I think you should be charitable to the "accommodationists" because theistic evolution is a reverse wedge strategy. Miller and Collins certainly wouldn't say that their approach helps to convert Christians to atheists, but by sowing doubt about a literal Bible and a young earth and 7-day creation, and by suggesting to Christians that it is possible to believe in Jesus and also accept an old earth and evolution by natural selection, they help to convert fundamentalist creationists into (more) rational free thinkers who embrace the findings of science. Your common enemy is the likes of the Texas school board, creationists who have power to do actual harm to science education. The enemy of your enemy is your friend.

Have you really heard churchfolk talk about people like Francis Collins? You're right bringing up a Wedge analogy, but it's not a reverse wedge scientific accomodationists use. Their approach is solely motivated by keeping God relevant. They're the science version of Youth Pastors that rap to keep the kids interested and coming to Sunday School and Wednesday evening Youth Group.

Atheists have no need to reconcile science with God in order to stay happy, fulfilled atheists. But more and more, religionists need to feel that their religion is reconciled with science, and these people give them the drugs they need to do so. All that religious people take away from Miller/Collins books are "science proves MY religion to be true".

Posted by: QrazyQat | June 12, 2009 1:12 PM

Don't forget the charge that Jerry was somehow uncivil. I still have no idea how/when/where he was meant to be uncivil.

Dan Gardner answered this in The Ottawa Citizen (5 May 2007) in the context of why people claim Richard Dawkins is fanatical and uncivil:

Well, it goes something like this: If you claim that something is true, I will examine the evidence which supports your claim; if you have no evidence, I will not accept that what you say is true and I will think you a foolish and gullible person for believing it so.

That's it. That's the whole, crazy, fanatical package.

When the Pope says that a few words and some hand-waving causes a cracker to transform into the flesh of a 2,000-year-old man, Dawkins and his fellow travellers say, well, prove it. It should be simple. Swab the Host and do a DNA analysis. If you don't, we will give your claim no more respect than we give to those who say they see the future in crystal balls or bend spoons with their minds or become werewolves at each full moon.

And for this, it is Dawkins, not the Pope, who is labelled the unreasonable fanatic on par with faith-saturated madmen who sacrifice children to an invisible spirit.

Lincoln, in his Cooper Union speech, also answered this in another context:

The question recurs, what will satisfy them? Simply this: We must not only let them alone, but we must somehow, convince them that we do let them alone. This, we know by experience, is no easy task. We have been so trying to convince them from the very beginning of our organization, but with no success. In all our platforms and speeches we have constantly protested our purpose to let them alone; but this has had no tendency to convince them. Alike unavailing to convince them, is the fact that they have never detected a man of us in any attempt to disturb them.

These natural, and apparently adequate means all failing, what will convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly - done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated - we must place ourselves avowedly with them. Senator Douglas' new sedition law must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private. We must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We must pull down our Free State constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us.

I am quite aware they do not state their case precisely in this way. Most of them would probably say to us, "Let us alone, do nothing to us, and say what you please about slavery." But we do let them alone - have never disturbed them - so that, after all, it is what we say, which dissatisfies them. They will continue to accuse us of doing, until we cease saying.

Posted by: sng | June 12, 2009 1:40 PM

Monado,

No. I can't see radiation. So what? Eyes are crap instruments anyway. I can measure it. In an objective, repeatable, and explainable manner.

Not so much with god. Your analogy is horribly flawed.

Posted by: Alex | June 12, 2009 2:25 PM

One of the many argumentative strategies adopted by theists that completely baffles me is the claim, repeated by Miller, that "Divine intervention [is] beyond the ability of science to investigate". Presumably they don't *really* mean this. Presumably, for instance, if a bearded magic man were to descend from the sky tomorrow and start throwing thunderbolts around, causing floods & swarms of locusts, etc., they'd take this as a vindication of theism. That is, if confronted with intersubjectively verifiable observations that appear to provide evidence that God exists and intervenes in the world, they presumably wouldn't turn around and insist that this isn't *really* evidence because there couldn't possibly be such evidence! Surely they'd embrace the evidence and trumpet it from the rooftops. So it's transparently special pleading for them to hold that the absence of such evidence fails to support atheism because "Divine intervention [is] beyond the ability of science to investigate". Either you deny that there could possibly be intersubjectively verifiable evidence for the existence of God, or you agree that the absence of such evidence provides evidence against the existence of God. You can't have it both ways!

Posted by: Kristian | June 12, 2009 2:29 PM

Paul-

I think you're right about Collins' and Miller's main purpose is to keep God relevant. They are not, however, claiming that "science proves MY religion to be true". Rather, they are claiming "science does not disallow my religion to be true". Miller and Collins, as good scientists, would never claim that science can prove anything about God. That is what creationists and intelligent design folk do. Miller and Collins oppose these people. It may seem pathetic to the majority of this blog's readers that Christians try to hold on to their faith in spite of the advance of science, but isn't it better to let Miller and Collins keep their faith if it doesn't interfere with science and the pursuit of knowledge? Is your goal to promote good science or to promote atheism? While one may lead to the other, these are separate battles, and the promotion of good science is certainly the easier of the two.

Posted by: Joe Bleau | June 12, 2009 2:53 PM

Alex @110 (and 111),

I think that theists of Miller's ilk don't really put any stock whatsoever in the the literalist notion of God as a big bearded Sky-Daddy. On the contrary, they push Him out to a metaphysical, non-natural magisterium (let's call it 'Godspace'), and ignore the fact that such an idea is pretty much functionally useless, if not nonsensical (in fact, it can be perhaps said of practically all 'soft' nonliteral theists that they have difficulty distinguishing between the notions of 'mysterious' and 'nonsensical').

We can't visit Godspace, but the resident(s) of Godspace can somehow indirectly affect our material universe. Also, we all have some sort of built in magic antenna that can pick up transmissions from Godspace, which are somehow converted from metaphysical to physical (the mechanisms of said supernatural -> natural conversion are also left, er, 'mysterious').

In other words, they don't take the idea of God as matter any more seriously then we do, and I rather doubt that they would be quick to embrace a physical manifestation of Him irrespective of his seeming magical abilities.

Posted by: J.C. Samuelson | June 12, 2009 3:34 PM

I can quite imagine someone tearing their hair out over this argument.

Slightly off-topic, but related here...

What nags at me is that a take-no-prisoners, full frontal assault is not what caused me to re-evaluate my thinking while I was still in the throes of theism. What caused it - well, there were multiple causes really. Mostly what springs to mind is two statements given by two distinctly different people that led me to examine my beliefs.

One was given by a pretty liberal pastor with whom I was well-acquainted, and the other by an atheist. Both statements were pretty innocuous, and there's no point mentioning the content in too much detail (the pastor's statement in particular would take too long to explain how it affected me), but the atheist simply suggested that I check things out for myself, along with some resources to begin. Nothing too heavy or confrontational, either. Just basic facts that I could take or leave as I wished.

The rest, as they say, is history. But the point is that while it's easy to appreciate an uncompromising approach, the fact of the matter (I think) is that people aren't going to suddenly slap themselves in the head and say "Whoa! These guys REALLY are on about something, aren't they? I better re-evaluate my thinking!" Change - real change - occurs slowly and gradually (if it occurs at all) and according to the will of the individual.

Does this line up with cognitive science? There's a very good series of articles by Valerie Tarico, a psychologist and atheist who's a former Christian titled, "Christian Belief Through the Lens of Cognitive Science" that I think might shed some light on this. The latest part can be found here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/valerie-tarico/christian-belief-through_b_213879.html

One statement from her latest article is (I think) telling in this context: "Arguments with believers start from a false premise -- that the believer is bound by the rules of debate rather than being bound by the belief itself." I interpret this to imply that stating a particular fact in an uncompromising, defiant, or confrontational manner isn't going to get anyone anywhere. Or, as Eugenie Scott said, "The rejection of evolution is not something that will be solved by throwing science at it." And effectiveness is the goal, right? Should we work to change minds or beat moderate theists and/or "accommodationists" over the head with a copy of "Origins?"

To be effective, I think that politics (here meaning engaging those who might be allies in a conciliatory manner) might be something worth getting acquainted with. There's nothing I've read anywhere, and no experience I can point to, that polemics and confrontation of this sort leads to anything more than deeper entrenchment.

Getting back on-topic directly, having read the entire faith-related body of information at the NCSE, I've personally concluded that their objective is to neutralize religion inasmuch as they are able. By neutralize, I mean take the teeth out of the creationists' (and, it seems, some biologists') claims that acceptance of evolution inherently leads to atheism. Whether it does or doesn't is beside the point, because in the larger cultural struggle, another important step is to get those who live in this society become more aware that religion's claim on truth is tenuous. To this end, de-clawing absolutist claims doesn't seem that unreasonable to me.

Does the NCSE take things too far? I'm not convinced. To relate this back to my "de-conversion," the process for me was like this: YEC > OEC > Theistic Evolution > Evolution. The gradual progression was simply through the continued influx of additional information. I figured out the implications for myself, and therefore didn't feel threatened that someone was attacking my beliefs at the time.

Not a very good explication of my thoughts - almost stream of consciousness - but there it is. Feel free to flame. ;)

Posted by: spaghettini | June 12, 2009 3:52 PM

The rest, as they say, is history. But the point is that while it's easy to appreciate an uncompromising approach, the fact of the matter (I think) is that people aren't going to suddenly slap themselves in the head and say "Whoa! These guys REALLY are on about something, aren't they? I better re-evaluate my thinking!" Change - real change - occurs slowly and gradually (if it occurs at all) and according to the will of the individual.

You're assuming, in the face of past experience, that the "uncompromising approach" isn't capable of bringing about gradual change in individual attitudes, and then assuming, again in the face of past experience, that the "split the difference" approach will work better. In practice I find the latter generally comes across as muddled, dishonest, or both.

Posted by: J.C. Samuelson | June 12, 2009 4:16 PM

You're assuming, in the face of past experience, that the "uncompromising approach" isn't capable of bringing about gradual change in individual attitudes, and then assuming, again in the face of past experience, that the "split the difference" approach will work better. In practice I find the latter generally comes across as muddled, dishonest, or both.

A better way to put it would be that I'm skeptical of that approach. Also, a clarification might be in order.

When I say 'uncompromising,' I meant confrontational and in-your-face. Sorry for that.

The only 'success' I ever had getting a theist to examine his beliefs was when I did exactly what that atheist I mentioned did for me. I suggested he go learn for himself, and gave him a series of resources and told him to come back if he had any questions. He did come back, and gave me his interpretation of what he'd read. Fortunately, he was right on the money, and I simply said "You got it. Now you've got something else to think about."

I don't know whatever happened to him after that, but I never saw him again arguing for the religious position on evolution. To be fair, I don't know if this counts as a 'success' (thus the quotes), but his disappearance led me to believe that at least he was off his high horse.

No capitulation, and no splitting the difference, but no battering rams or cannons either.

Of course, you could be right. I don't claim to have a monopoly on good approaches. It's just that experience hasn't taught me any different.

Posted by: spaghettini | June 12, 2009 5:00 PM

I regret how harsh I came across as harsh in #121, I don't think you were arguing in bad faith, but I honestly don't understand where you see rhetorical "battering rams or cannons" being deployed here.

Posted by: tomh | June 12, 2009 5:39 PM

@ #119 Anyone been reading Jason Rosenhouse's blog? There are current threads over there featuring both Kw*k and O'Bri*n. If Larry F*f*rm*n would show up, wow!

Only those of us with too much time on our hands. They've got Anthony McCarthy with them which makes a trifecta winner if ever there was one.

Posted by: Michael Kingsford Gray | June 12, 2009 9:07 PM

#102 Posted by: Kristian ... PZ, I think you should be charitable to the "accommodationists" because theistic evolution is a reverse wedge strategy.

Look at how far this weak-kneed pandering simpering has got us in the last 2000 years.
Abso-bloody-lutely NOWHERE!
Isn't it time to stop advising this abysmal strategy?

PZ, Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens etc have achieved far more in under a year by ditching this bogus behaviour, and confronting the theists' outrageous frauds and lies in a robust manner.

Your suggestion to PZ, is as good as to advise that he approve of a pathetically pusillanimous course of action that has been conclusively proven to fail, over a testing period of millennia!!

I completely fail to understand why anyone might do this.

Posted by: John Morales | June 12, 2009 10:21 PM

J.C. Samuelson,

My biggest question is: Is the objective to dimish mythical beliefs through the acceptance of science, or is it the promotion of atheism? There is a difference, in my opinion.

Posted by: articulett | June 13, 2009 11:41 PM

I am a science teacher, and I appreciate being able to point to Collins and Miller as examples of the "many theists have no problem with evolution". On the other hand, I don't like giving support to this meme that "faith" is something good or a means of knowing objective facts.

I tell my students that when I want to understand something about science, I go to the scientists-- those who study and love learning more about their particular area, because I've found them to be the best and most useful sources for understanding more myself. I don't go to gurus when I want to understand the way the universe works, because they have a very poor track record, and no error correcting mechanism.

I suppose all approaches have their uses if the goal is to further the acceptance of science. But I respect PZ et. al. for refusal to give the "courtier's reply". They are also dismantling this dangerous idea that there are people out there with "divine truths" that you can realize via "faith". The real truths are equally available to all who are interested in learning, though they are less available to those who have been indoctrinated to believe that they need to "believe in" a certain unbelievable story to be saved. If someone really wants to understand the origin of life on earth, we finally can. But this idea that it's noble to believe some simplistic creationist story is a mind-virus that is a true block to learning some of the most powerful information humans have come to discover. I never want to be a part of actively encouraging or applauding such belief. I think it's far better to treat such claims the way one would treat the wacky claims of a Scientologist--dismissively. Theist claims are entitled to no more respect than theists give other supernatural conjecture.

PZ, Dawkins, Coyne, and others are willing to share some of the coolest information we humans have uncovered about our history, but those claiming access to "higher truths" continually denigrate them so that the masses cannot share in the wonder. To me, those who vilify these folks are as egregious as people who'd try to assert that the earth is the center of the universe. They are as guilty as those who aimed to silence Galileo. I adore Ken Miller and Eugenie Scott. But don't compel me to play along when you are spinning tales of Santa for the kiddies. I am against the meme that "faith" is something to be respected.

Posted by: articulett | June 14, 2009 12:25 AM

Of course the approach of Coyne, PZ, and Dawkins work! They are read by many. If the goal is to get people to understand evolution, I suspect, these people have taught more than any of those doing the "soft sell". You have to be heard to get your message out.

If the goal is to spread scientific understanding, then we should be able to test those who have studied under the "strident atheists" and those who have studied under the "accomodationists" and see which technique is more effective. It was Dawkins writing that made me understand and pursue further understanding of evolution and science--to be inspired in a way beyond anything I experienced with religion. Eugenie Scott encouraged me to teach the subject--to understand how important it was that others understood what we humans have come to know--and I frequently use and recommend Ken Miller's texts and clips.

I suppose that Dawkins, PZ, and Coyne might be a threat to those who fear losing their salvation by losing their faith-- but I can't tell if the NCSE's approach is doing wonders for these people either. I do understand how this is a sort of a reverse wedge strategy... get the knowledge in their heads before they put up their faith shields to block out the information. And I guess that is useful. But I don't want to have to say, "evolution could be God's way of creating humans," because it seems to encourage magical thinking, and I'm uncomfortable with that. No supernatural claims are supported by evidence and all of them are unfalsifiable and so I find them all equally dismissive and useless for understanding objective facts--the ones that are the same for everyone no matter what they believe.

I think the root problem in this debate is the very thing that Coyne, PZ, and Dawkins are fighting against--this idea that "faith" is a means of scientific knowledge. I hate the doubletalk where science (which makes no claims of divine truths) is "arrogant" and those claiming divine truths are humble. The reverse is true. Faith based notions ought to be kept private... it's what all theists want of theists who believe differently than they do, anyhow, right? Its not the fault of scientists that there is no evidence to support any supernatural beliefs. Before decrying the methods of PZ and his "ilk", one ought to look at the number of people they are reaching and compare them to those whose approach one imagines more efficacious.

Is it wrong to ask that Miller, the NCSE, etc. treat religious superstition the way they'd treat any similar superstition in science? Can't biologists treat such claims the same way an astronomer might treat astrologists? After all, what people "believe" is not relevant to what is true nor is the amiability of the person delivering the message. Humans believed the earth was flat for eons-- that does not mean it ever was, and we should not have to do any "soft sell" to those who hold such a notion. The facts work fine, so long as people aren't infected with the notion that "faith" in some incoherent story is essential to their salvation. I admire the scientists who declare that the emperor is naked and go on to more important tasks of illuminating the facts we do no. I don't want to be part of the crowd claiming that "he could be wearing clothes", and I side with Coyne in these matters. I don't think I'd opt to change Ken or Eugenie's approach, but in my view, Coyne's approach is more honest and attacks the real problem ("faith in faith") at it's core. I don't think Coyne, PZ, Dawkins, etc. are causing any sort of harm to scientific understanding... certainly no more harm than those I see as sort of "religious apologists", and I suspect they are spreading deeper understanding than their critics imagine. To me, they are more honest than those who have made a habit of lying to themselves (theists) and those who cover for such lies (apologists). Once you understand that faith is not a means of knowledge, you are free to explore the evidence that is.

Posted by: Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth | June 14, 2009 3:16 AM

Articlett, you are restating what I say @ Skeptic Society Forum about Scott and Ruse, in effect. They so deplore that the weight of evidence shows no cosmic teleology, that she states in her book against creationism that scientists should not state such! No, the weight, pace Smpson and Mayer, shows no teleology whatsoever: thus one cannot invoke God period! One cannot find Him in the sub-atomic forces as Miller finds that perhaps He does influence matters- argument from ignorance! That new Omphalos argument! Logic is the bane of theists.
This weight of evidence makes for the teleonomic/ atelic argument that God need not apply for work!
Erantists rationalize the Buy-bull as much as do fundamentalists: they are all creationists in the wide sense. Remember to state that when a theistic evolutionist says twaddle that " Faith doth that to people!"
Folks Google teleonomy.
" Life is its own validation and reward and purpose."

Posted by: olle | June 17, 2009 11:49 PM

PZ Idiot: "....without clarifying exactly what his views on theistic explanations in evolution are."

oh, you dumb shit. I might as well ask what's a liberals explanation of evolution is? or what an atheist explanation of evolution is . The term "theistic evolution" is not a term claiming some sort of theistic version of evolution, but a term claiming that the individual is a theist, and accepts evolution, not that he has an alternative version of it than yours.

Was it really that hard to figure that out? get a brain you nut job.

Posted by: olle | July 6, 2009 7:29 AM

John Moralles: "Did it occur to you that, if he's a theist and accepts evolution, then he should have "views on theistic explanations in evolution"? That you failed to grasp this (so very simple) concept before issuing insults says a lot more about you than about PZ."

Did it occur to you that theist that accept evolution, explanation for it, would be no different than the theist that accepts gravity, explanation for it? Theistic evolutionist such as Ken Miller, who writes bio text books, doesn't have an alternative explanation for evolution than you do, or Dawkins does, or any credible scientist does.

It's a term used to distinguish Christian who accept evolution, and Christian who don't, and not a term used to distinguish an atheist, or an agnostic's definition of evolution, from his.

Posted by: John Morales | July 6, 2009 8:57 AM

Aw, Cosmic. :)

Olle has one comment left.

Posted by: olle | July 7, 2009 12:16 AM

Watchman: "Except that Miller has suggested that God might actively intervene in the process by somehow tinkering with mutations."

Can you prove this? And I suggest you don't quote Coyne, but Miller himself. I have yet to hear Miller suggest that God might have tinkered with mutations. I have heard that pathetic douche-bag Coyne lie and claim Miller did, but I suggest if you're going to accuse Miller of this as well, you better be prepared to back it up, with his actual words.

Posted by: John Morales | July 9, 2009 8:16 AM

Bah, blockquote failure above.

(Should be obvious where the quote begins and ends.)