Quote of The Week

Without an evolutionary underpinning, then how we describe and understand diversity and how we go about saving it is damn near impossible.

Let us-- in the service of a transcendent moral obligation and concern put aside our differences for the time being and not fuss with each other over evolution.
**********************************************
Ok so what does that exactly mean?

There are a few scenarios one can think of:

1) Neither side pushes the evolution/creationism issue until the climate issue is resolved.

2) Both sides keep pushing their respective opinions regarding evolution & creationism but agree to come together to work on climate change.

3) Creationists give up on pushing creationism and work with scientists on climate change.

4) Scientists give up on fighting creationists until the climate change issue is solved.

Number 3 I can get behind and as long as creationists push for creationism to be taught then I think scientists need to push back. Number 2 wouldn't be ideal but I would be fine with. Number 1 keeps scientific illiteracy too high in the US for my comfort. Number 4 is a non-starter. Creationists are the ones pushing religion into the arena of science. To say that is ok in order to gain some support for climate change is just setting for future failures (i.e. cost is too great for very little reward).

Matt,

Would you be willing to apply this to the evolution issue by shutting up with your criticisms of Dawkins and PZ?

If a particular religious belief is a barrier to the understanding of science, why would we not want to address that religious belief?

If a particular religious belief is allowing certain harmful laws or regulations to be passed, why would we not want to address that religious belief?

I really don't understand this urge to..be...so...quiet..

And I don't see the evidence that our quietness, over the past quarter century, achieved good results.

Where's the beef?

Let us-- in the service of a transcendent moral obligation and concern put aside our differences for the time being and not fuss with each other over evolution.

By quoting this without comment I can only guess at your motives, but I presume that you find this is acceptable. I join others who question the reason that you are on ScienceBlogs.

So, what service would it provide to allow pseudoscience to remain unchecked, this "unruffling of feathers" position. Evoluton is what teaches us that we are all a part of "creaton." It is what marks our indelible stamp. It is the science that shows us that we have responsibility to the "moral cause." It teaches us that we are not a special craetion and that in saving the biosphere we are saving ourselves. The creationists should be allowed to wallow in their ignorance until we can restore the climate? How will they ever learn the importance of taking action if they are allowed to think that they are protected by God?

I join others who question the reason that you are on ScienceBlogs.

Says the stereotypically fanatical atheist liberal whose blogroll is strictly limited to atheist websites...

But hey!... at least politics and the culture war aren't the main factors of these anti-righteous science lovers... (but they can't they see my eyes rolling either).

"Let us ... not fuss with each other over evolution".

I do not quite understand, what this "fussing" means in this sentence. Please explain this to a stupid foreigner.

Particularily, how has the scientific community "fussed" so far? Has it tried to make evolution an compulsory part of sermons and Sunday schools? Or is an attempt to keep the biology curriculum scientific in public schools "fussing"?

not to pile on or anything, but nice hair.

Not that I want to accuse Matthew of quote mining, or anything, but if you follow his link (to his previous post) and then follow the link in THAT post to the transcript, and scroll down just a little bit below the part that Matthew quotes, you see that Wilson's views are not exactly as simple as portrayed here:

If we could change our world-view, it would be somewhat radical, but it would mean seeing ourselves as a biological species in a biological world. That we are a species exquisitely well adapted to this planet and that we originated here and that our peculiarities including the ones that threaten us all the time, that threaten your own - threaten our own existence are - can be understood by the history of the way we originated in that living world. And if we could just place ourselves realistically in that context and stop thinking of ourselves as semi angels, you know, on the way that this is just a weigh station on a way on up to - an idealized existence - change that. Then, I think we would get pretty serious about peace and long term security and saving the rest of life. And - and - keeping our options open for the future.

In other words, if we replace the notion of "creation in god's image" with a broadening public knowledge that we evolved and are thus kin to all life, that'd be a good start toward solving the problem.

But that bit wouldn't support Matthew's argument, would it?

Chris,
I'm not clear what the point is. How is that elaboration inconsistent with the goal of atheists and religious Americans working together to solve common problems instead of being in constant polarized fights? You can certainly be religious and accept that we are a biological species living in a biological world.

*headdesk*

Who causes those polarized fights, Matthew? And over what topic?

The issue is not that atheist scientists are crusading to abolish religion. It is that religious extremists are trying to push their own ideology into education, to the detriment of objective, verifiable fact.

And you provide the religious extremists cover by reframing it as a fight on a level playing field between opponents of equal goodwill.

You provide cover for people who would advance ignorance.

You are working to help spread ignorance, Matthew.