Larry Moran seems to think that I belong to the “Neville Chamberlain ‘apeasement’ [sic] school” of evolutionists. So what does one need to believe to be part of this school? Moran, having spent long hours talking with me on these issues, and knowing me so well, can enlighten us. In short, one must believe the following:
These are scientists who are willing to compromise science in order to form an alliance with some religious groups who oppose Christian fundamentalism. Do you believe in miracles? That’s okay, it’s part of science. Do you believe that God guides evolution in order to produce beings who worship him? That’s fine too; it’s all part of the Neville Chamberlain version of intelligent design. Souls, moral law, life after death, a fine-tuned universe, angels, the efficacy of prayer, transubstantiation … all these things are part of the new age science according to the apeasement [sic] school. There’s no conflict with real science.
Guess what Larry? I don’t believe in any of those things and certainly don’t believe that they are “part of science.” I’m not willing to compromise science, and if someone tried to teach these ideas in science classrooms I would oppose it as much as I do YEC and ID. More importantly, Ken Miller (apparently the uber-Chamberlain) is not trying to have any of this stuff taught. So quit making stuff up, ok? It just makes you look like an idiot. I’m sure you enjoy the attention and the shock-value but you know what, it gets annoying after a while. Try some of that rationality you value.
And to set the record straight, I am not a Theistic Evolutionist and never have been. I am an agnostic … due to intellectual humility as much as anything else. I was an atheist for a good period, and earned my stripes baiting the believers, but eventually realized that the pose being adopted by many (but definitely not all) atheists was, frankly, intellectually childish.
My agnosticism comes from thinking about the issues over the years, not from being a “wimp,” as you seem to imagine all that disagree with you are. My agnosticism allows me to work with whomever is willing (believers and atheists) to ensure that only science is taught in science class. Your form of atheism alienates people who share the same goals regarding science education. All for what? A sense of intellectual superiority? A persecution complex? That rebel streak? Sheer bloody-minded indifference to the fact that people don’t all think the same way as you?
I don’t think either atheists or, for that matter, theists are inherently immoral: I don’t classify people as readily as you seem to do. It is very easy for people to imagine the world is a simple black and white place, a world of rationalism versus superstition, us versus them, atheists versus believers (with the “wimps” appeasing the enemy). Doctrinaire certitude in ones own correctness is comforting: it is also a form of intellectual fundamentalism, a mindset that exactly mirrors that of Gish, Ham and fellow travelers. Some definition of “rationality”.