He manages to accomplish something I cannot: Larry Moran reviews Francis Collins' book, The Language of God. It's negative, of course, but far fairer and more generous than I could have been. I was afraid the snarl I wore when I was struggling through that awful book was going to be permanently stuck on my face.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Larry Moran has an excellent review of Francis Collins' silly book The Language of God. You don't really appreciate Ken Miller until you have contemplated the far daffier arguments made by Collins. Moran writes:
The second persuasive argument is the presence in all of us of a God-shaped vacuum.…
Horgan lists the Ten worst science books. Here's his criteria for a bad science book:
These books aren't merely awful, of course, but harmful. Most have been bestsellers, or had some sort of significant impact, which often means--paradoxically--that they are rhetorical masterpieces.
I find myself…
The "Revelation" as described by St. John, though likely inspired through the
use of hallucinogens (see The Mystery of Manna).
The title for this post comes from a terrific book by the neuroscientist Antonio Damasio, but I think it's appropriate for a discussion on faith, feeling and reason.…
This week's Nature features a news article and editorial about Francis Collins--director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute--whose new book The Language of God advocates reconciliation between science and religion. Although the status of science in America could be improved by…
...someone please tell me I'm wrong about this, but it seems--from this out-of-context quote--that Collins became a Christian because he didn't want to have to take responsibility for his actions.
Skemono;
If I am reading it correctly, it is the opposite. He was afraid that if he was wrong in his atheism he would be answerable to someone. He wanted to know who it was, so he started searching for the right god so he knew who not to offend.
As I rounded the corner and saw a beautiful and unexpected frozen waterfall, hundreds of feet high, I knew the search was over. The next morning, I knelt in the dewy grass as the sun rose and surrendered to Jesus Christ. (p. 225)
I'd like to think it impossible not to feel awe and a certain reverence at any number of sights, smells and sounds encountered when travelling in the mountains. I don't think that surrendering to plate tectonic theory has ever lessened my awe or dampened my enthusiasm to return and renew my spirit. I don't see that my response is in any way the lesser path.
I rounded the corner and saw such wonders of god unfolding before my eyes: a child starving .. another, a baby, condemned to a life of fighting and bigotry ... then a mother unable to stand from the illness modern medicine would cure if she had the access, alone, her husband killed earlier in a religious war... later a bus full of teenagers going on a church event overturned off the highway, it about to explode into flames as the young people scream to their god.... and on the TV men crashing into towers after praying fervently to the father... oh these wonders never cease and never cease to amaze and inspire us...
Yes I have seen the wonder of lord ... and I am humbled by what a sick psychopath the mother-fucker is!!!
Or -- ring ring to the Lewis's and Collins's ... HE DON'T EXIST!!
Whenever a believer admits to having been "converted" by reading Lewis, the intellectual quality of whose apologetic writings is truly lamentable even as such things go, one knows to expect just the sort of tediously banal stuff that Collins recounts in that passage.
Speaking of books, God Delusion is finally available in audio format. Richard Dawkins and Lalla Ward are the readers!
If there's anything better than reading Dawkins, it's listening to him. Sample:
http://www.audible.com/adbl/site/products/ProductDetail.jsp?productID=B…
As I rounded the corner and saw a beautiful and unexpected frozen waterfall, hundreds of feet high, I knew the search was over. The next morning, I knelt in the dewy grass as the sun rose and surrendered to Jesus Christ. (p. 225)
I wonder how he publically reconciles this statement of his "conversion" or "reawakening", with his statement the year prior to the release of his book, where he unequivocally states that it was the death of a close family member that was the trigger?
One can clearly see in his writings, a tendency for Collins to gradually gloss over the actual roots of his "conversion" in favor of poetry that sells more books.
poor guy.
That description of his conversion suggests to me that his book isn't aimed at the educated, it's preaching to the choir. He wants to reassure the true believers that there's no reason to question their faith, not convince anyone with critical thinking skills. He's handing out the "but a famous scientist said it" ammunition.
The next morning, I knelt in the dewy grass as the sun rose and surrendered to Jesus Christ.
And because Jesus died a long time ago, he couldn't have cared less.
What a fool.
Jesus slaughtered the surrendering soldiers, tracked the survivors to their homes, and killed the women and children so they could never again be a threat. Hey, it's what his Father had done so many times before...
The next morning, I knelt in the dewy grass as the sun rose and surrendered to Jesus Christ.
My white flag was gently flapping in the morning breeze. I wept.
Jesus slaughtered the surrendering soldiers, tracked the survivors to their homes, and killed the women and children so they could never again be a threat.
hey, wasn't that the South Park Episode where Jesus saves Santa from imprisonment in Iraq?
(no, I'm not kidding; it was pretty funny)
just a reminder here, though, the first half of Collins book, where he sticks to what the genetic evidence says in support of the ToE, is actually full of useful information and well written.
It's just when he goes off on his expedition into the non-rational compartment of his brain and digs up his "moral laws" arguments for special creation that it gets ridiculous.
seriously, there is some very good stuff in the first half of the book, the kind of things you would expect from someone who headed the human genome project.
my point is that it is still worth reading... up to the point of divergence from rationality.
As I rounded the corner and saw a beautiful and unexpected frozen waterfall, hundreds of feet high, I knew the search was over.
I had found the Jesus waterfall of my dreams:
http://i1.ebayimg.com/01/i/06/6a/2f/a9_1_b.JPG
well, technically, the chapters on genetics and evolution are spread out, but they constitute about half of the book. Larry kinda just mentions the only interesting parts of the book in passing fashion only.
for that alone, I'd say his review is a bit too focused on the "woo" part of it.
again, my sporadic reading of the book makes me conclude that the inclusion of the "moral law" drivel was mostly an attempt to appeal to a very specific audience on Collins part; likely in part to sell more books, and in part to flesh out his own cognitive dissonance for himself.
...and one last comment.
there was a decent analysis of the flaws in Collins "moral law" argument on TalkReason a couple of months ago:
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Theistic.cfm
which spawned several heated discussions on PT and in the ATBC area of PT.
I'm still waiting for somebody to do a decent review on the parts of the book that actually deal with reality; his vast knowledge of genetics and evolution that he wrote about in the book.
sorry, one LAST thing.
It should be noted how common the reviews of Collins views on theism in the book are, as opposed to the reviews of the genetic and evolutionary content.
that might give a hint as to why he wrote it the way he did.
I find it interesting that the most vituperative language here is reserved not so much for Collins and his views, but for Jesus. Is it the banality of his 'conversion' that strikes a nerve, or is it the sense that this somehow a moment of betrayal?
If the former, then it's just bad poetry, a personal taste, no harm done. If it's the latter, what is being betrayed?
SH
There's a good reason for that. Picture a distinguished scholar giving a sober lecture, and then as he steps away from the lectern, it's discovered that he is wearing no pants.
What will everyone be talking about the next day?
...he stood by Bill Clinton's side as the president announced that the mapping of the human genome was complete. It turns out that Collins worked with the president's speechwriter to help craft Clinton's religious spin on this scientific breakthrough. "Today," Clinton said, "we are learning the language in which God created life."
http://prosblogion.ektopos.com/archives/2006/08/interview_with_2.html
Sermon excerpts:
Faith Presbyterian Church (Oct. 29, 2006)
A kind friend recently gave me Francis Collins' book, The Language of God, which I read greedily in a few days. Here the author explained how DNA is the hereditary code of our species. DNA gives the words of God's vocabulary.
http://www.faithpresbyterian.org/sermons/archives/2006/10/jesus_the_lig…
God, Science, and the Life of Faith"
The Very Rev. Samuel T. Lloyd III
Dean of Washington National Cathedral
Washington National Cathedral
Epiphany V
February 5, 2006
Writing in the New York Times not long ago, Francis Collins, Director of the National Genome Research Institute and a person of faith said, "I see no conflict between what the Bible tells me about God and what science tells me about nature. If God chose to use the mechanisms of evolution to create you and me, who are we to say that wasn't an absolutely elegant plan?" Religion and science need each other. As Albert Einstein put it, "Religion without science is blind. Science without religion is lame."
http://www.cathedral.org/cathedral/worship/stl060205.html
This guy is being quoted in sermons all over the country. I doubt the ministers and pastors are quoting the science half of Collins' book to their flocks. He's been doing this con since Clinton was in office. I don't think we should cut him any slack.
What will everyone be talking about the next day?
of course, but that's why i was thinking it to be so obvious as a sales tactic, or a simple attempt at garnering publicity.
the question is, how much of it really is Collins expressing his own inner 'angst' resulting from his apparent cognitive dissonance?
How much of the same thing in Millers attempts over the last year can be divided similarly?
Is it the banality of his 'conversion' that strikes a nerve, or is it the sense that this somehow a moment of betrayal?
banal indeed, so, yes, and yes, as PZ points out, there is a sense of the betrayal of reason. Moreover, for me at least, there is considerable evidence that the pretty picture of his conversion he paints in his book is essentially a complete fabrication, based on interviews about the subject he gave some time previous to the release of his book, as I noted earlier.
collins is just the latest in a long series of individual betrayals of reason that have caused many in science to become hypersensitive to further idiocy of the like exhibited by collins exhortation of 'special creation because of moral law'.
You might try reading:
The Betrayal of Science and Reason by Paul Ehrlich to get a nice history of this trend over the last 30 years or so.
Chris Mooney's book is also a good read on a related front.
So, I find myself wondering: is there ever or has there ever been a case of an intelligent, respected scientist believing in God, whose arguments regarding that belief the atheists here would accept?
Not in some stupidly banal "oh, convert me, too!" sense, but more in a "I can understand that and respect that even if I don't agree" sense?
Or perhaps, better stated: views of the divine that would not get the individual's ass handed to them?
So, I find myself wondering: is there ever or has there ever been a case of an intelligent, respected scientist believing in God, whose arguments regarding that belief the atheists here would accept?
not if those arguments are treated as if they were scientific in nature, or if they revealed a severe lack of logic and ignorance of entire fields of research, for example, the argument of special creation as evidenced by the concept of 'moral law' espoused by collins.
Personally, I think the only argument that I would shoot down, is the simple one that an honest believer would admit; that his belief is based on "faith" alone, and nothing more. trying to "science" god out of the gaps is pathetic at best, regardless of whether we take it from the science perspective, or the theologic perspective.
this is why Collins arguments fall so flat; they are based on twists of reason and logic that ARE completely unreasonable, and yes, he does deserve to have his ass handed to him for presenting them to begin with. Even moreso as he mixes them with actual real science of genetics and evolution.
in fact, I think most here would find Collins to be more objectionable for that specifically, since his argument ignores so many fields he should be at least aware of given his position, if not conversant in (behavioral ecology, psychology, etc.).
I certainly don't speak for the majority here, however, who do indeed present a logical case that faith is simply misplaced angst.
at least, though, if you claim your faith is not based on observable evidence, nobody can say you aren't being honest.
bottom line:
apologists will get roasted, EOS.
would shoot down
wouldn't shoot down.
damn fingers.
also, from your website:
Ideas which a scientist honors with the title of theory share a number of features:
They explain a lot of observations.
They are supported by a great deal of evidence.
They are very broad, encompassing and explaining a lot of hypotheses.
Despite many, many challenges, they have never been demonstrated to be untrue.
add:
They have predictive value (they can explain future observations).
I see you are starting to at least realize that your peers notions of the equivalency of ID in these areas is at best unwarranted.
ah, i see later in your article you do in fact address the predictive value of the ToE; it's just that it should be in your list of features for "theory" too.
As for acceptance, not that I know of. But, John Polkinghorne has written a few things that aren't so utterly fallacious as to be instantly dismissed. He isn't the kind of person who would try to present a bad argument by fast talking his way through it, he doesn't try to pull the semantic legerdemain that so many apologists do, and he's honest. On the whole, he's a thoughtful guy. Actually, unlike so many of his contemporaries, he's so respectable that I think he's in real danger of adding some credibility to that Templeton Prize.
Rev. Raven:
Depends which atheist you're talking to! Atheists, unlike some Christian sects, are not monolithic. They are a diverse bunch, and I've found that some of them treat me (a believer) rather well, whereas others...not so much so. That's alright. Most of them have good reason (personal history) to distrust theists and I don't blame them for being cautious.
On the nice front, I've had more than one atheist politely tell me that they think I'm alright, even if they think conventional theism is cuckoo. These folks often aver that they have a grudging respect (or at least less overt hostility) for something like deism or fideism, which they seem to think is closer to my views than orthodox Christianity. Others suggest that perhaps I am something of a 'pre-atheist' or an 'atheist in training', which suggests that they have hopes for me. So it's not all brickbats and bad eggs.
At any rate, overall, I've no cause to complain and it doesn't bother me in the slightest that there is no way to please everybody. I enjoy the interaction and hope to learn from it. I not only think it's OK for 'views of the divine' to be regarded critically, I think it's the right thing to do. And, as a guest, I can't really carp if a non-believer tries to hand me my ass in the process.
Icthyic: I understand what you're saying, but it's not clear to me that Collins is actually advocating 'special creation' of the soul or something like that where the OT God imparts a spirit to a literal 'Adam', or (more elaborately) specific acts of creation in the womb for each human 'soul'.
He strikes me as more sophisticated than that. He may believe that it is an emergent process built-in to the 'system' though I have to confess (regardless of how he couches it) I find it disappointing that he could blithely disregard the notion that natural selection could not have produced the moral sense.....SH
Icthyic: I understand what you're saying, but it's not clear to me that Collins is actually advocating 'special creation' of the soul or something like that where the OT God imparts a spirit to a literal 'Adam', or (more elaborately) specific acts of creation in the womb for each human 'soul'.
yes, he is exactly advocating special creation based on his idea that only humans have an "innate" concept of "moral law".
I've already had this argument many times, so before we begin again, do at least read the talkorigins critique first, as it does a decent job of summarizing the key points of collins' arguments.
he not only disregards "moral sense" as part of evolution, he ignores enitire fields of research in both behavioral ecology and psychology that support the evolutionary basis of same.
he doesn't even ADDRESS ANY of that evidence, at all.
a better term than disregards would be "ignores", and how does that make his arguments any less ignorant that standard creationist boilerplate?
Yes, that is close to the controversial divide between "facts" and "faith".
As Scott notes it also depends on individualistic behavior. Personally, I'm averse to dividing up areas of bounded rationality and keeping unnecessary assumptions. So even if I would tolerate fideism and pantheism I would not respect them but still argue for a homogeneous rationality. But personal views, including such religion, must be free.
There is also a matter of whether "it's OK for 'views of the divine' to be regarded critically". Most of religious special pleading would go with the apologists gone. But encompassing this view would remove remaining such pleading. Science, humanism, secularism, and even diverse views of atheism, are constantly criticized internally and should be externally as well. Nothing can be sacred.
Those two points would eliminate obvious conflicts and promote healthy relationships between world views. Perhaps the test would be if abortions, condoms and others life styles are removed from the religious table of concerns.
Well, Ichthyic, I don't know if Collins needs to do better. I don't see the argument for the evolutionary necessity for the moral law getting past coherence-truth and on to correspondence-truth without simply asserting it does such, so I don't really know why you're asking Collins to get past coherence to correspondence.
I'm curious about something, though. You said what kinds of arguments for theism you would not accept. What kind would you accept?
Yes. Ever read Ursula Goodenough? She even gets the Dawkins Seal of Approval...because her views are indistinguishable from atheism.
Einstein is another famous "believer" in Spinoza's "God" who doesn't generate much argument, again for the reason that the actual cash value of Spinozan pantheism is virtually indistinguishable from atheism.
Martin Gardner may not exactly be a scientist, but he is a prolific science/mathematics writer, who often states that he believes in god solely because the idea is comforting to him.
He's quite well respected by CSICOP, which tends to be a pretty critical of theism.
Something I noticed:
Collins' reasons for doubting atheism already set him down the path to Christianity.
The idea that god is a moral actor, and has put humans on this earth to act in a moral fashion is much more prominant in Christianity then it is in other religions.
I'm a bit of a dilletante when it comes to mesoamerican religions, and from what I've read, it seems to me that they didn't see god as being focused so heavily on morality.
First of all, morality is largely irrelevant to your place in the afterlife; In Aztec theology, if you died in battle or childbirth, you joined the sun in a kind of Valhalla, but no other destination was reached through moral behavior; whether you (For example) stole or not was essentially irrelevant to your afterlife.
Instead, correct living enabled human society to continue to function; failure to live a good life harmed both society and the person who failed to be moral in this world.
Second, deities were fairly complicated beings; the same one might tempt one man to sin while inspiring another to lead a moral life. The moral life of humanity was not among their paramount interests.
Anyway, my point is, the nature of Collins' revelation that the moral law implies god already caused him to move in a certain theological direction; he was already pre-disposed towards Christianity (Or perhaps Judaism or Islam) without being aware of it.
As I rounded the corner and saw a beautiful and unexpected frozen waterfall, hundreds of feet high, I knew the search was over. The next morning, I knelt in the dewy grass as the sun rose and surrendered to Jesus Christ.
Are there any cases of people converting back to atheism? Here's how I imagine Francis would do it.
"It was a dark and stormy night. As I rounded the corner and saw a beautiful and unexpected frozen waterfall, hundreds of feet high, I knew the search was over all over again. The next morning, I knelt in the dewy grass as the sun rose and renounced my surrender to Jesus Christ."
There has been only one argument for a belief in God that I have been willing to accept (although I am certain that many others here will strongly disagree). When people say that, even though they recognize that they have no evidence and no rational reason to believe, they still believe because it makes them happier and makes their life better. That is an argument I can understand and accept.
Blah! That's the book my in-laws have been aggressively leaving on the coffee table ever since we got into a dustup about me criticizing their fundie views on my blog. (What did we learn from this experience? Don't let your ratfink fundie brother-in-law know you have a blog.)
Should I send them a link to the review, or is that just putting out fire with gasoline?
Dustin,
Polkinghorne may be one of the better scientist Christian apologists, but that ain't saying much.
I highly recommend Simon Blackburn's scathing review of Polkinghorne's apologetics writings from The New Republic, which you may find here:
http://www.polarbearandco.com/blackburn.html
Polkinghorne is nuts too: At Princeton, Polkinghorne earnestly assures us, he and an "interdisciplinary group of scholars" recently spent three fruitful years making scientific estimates of God's plans for the destiny of the world. According to Polkinghorne and the Princetonians, the last things, when the Day of Judgment comes and the tombs are opened, are a bit like what we have now, but also a bit different: they are an "interplay between continuity and discontinuity." They do not include real Hell. They include only people who have not asked for admission to heaven, and these get some kind of after-life Bible classes. Beyond that, Heaven itself is a bit vague, but it includes pilgrimage and progress and increasing fullness. Heaven does not provide endless harps and psalms; nor, I think, does it afford Aquinas's favored pleasure of watching the tortures of the damned, nor Islam's seventy-two virgins per male martyr. In fact, I could not discover whether it included sex at all, but in their three years of deliberations Polkinghorne's group determined--scientifically, remember--that it may include some animals, especially domestic pets, although perhaps not too many of them, since it is permissible for God to "cull individuals in order to preserve the herd."
Sigh.
Here' what Complete Review has to say about Polkinghorne's book:
We did not give a grade to this book because it defies measurement in this manner. However, if we had, we probably would have given it the lowest grade ever assigned to any book under review. It is an abomination. Polkinghorne writes reasonably well, and pieces of his arguments -- restatements of scientific fact and of religious fancy -- are presented quite well. But the pieces do not fit together, and the ends to which he puts them are deeply disturbing.
This is one of the most upsetting books we have ever encountered. A scientific reputation, and an assortment of facts, are used to buttress pure religious speculation. Science has nothing to do with Polkinghorne's conclusions. Facts of any sort are entirely irrelevant. There is nothing tangible to his claims.
In a purely religious work these fanciful conjectures and pseudo-proofs (based on Biblical exegesis and the like) might be acceptable, but Polkinghorne has dressed them up to appear "scientific" when they aren't.
No less disturbing is the fact that he is unwilling to consider any other sort of future: only the Christian theory of life everafter will do, only the Christian theory is worth considering. And equally disturbing, he does not consider the very real and harmful consequences of his ideas.
http://www.complete-review.com/reviews/religion/polkingj.htm#note
When a scientist, a person who should know better, start drivelling on about God, people rightly get upset.
Martin Gardner . . . often states that he believes in god solely because the idea is comforting to him.
This seems to be the only rational reason to believe in God (or gods). Most people seem to have some need to explain the universe in terms that go beyond the observable. I say, if it comforts you and leads you to be a good person, what is the harm? I decided a while ago to be sort of an animist - everything has a spirit. Just the fact that life exists is reason for me to feel at one with the universe (on my better days). And makes me feel less crazy for talking to my houseplants.
Rev. Raven Daegmorgan: At present I do not know of any intellectuals whose theistic arguments are anything more than special pleading or distortions. In the past, when science and philosophy were less developed, there were people who I think were historically appropriate. Kierkegaard comes to mind; earlier, with a different context, Leibniz was also sophisticated. But these days ...
Ichthyic: Hey, I'll take you at your word and check out the link you mentioned. But if Collins is a special creationist where the 'soul' is concerned, then I still wonder if it's clear exactly *how* he thinks this was done. Is he claiming the whole business was infused all at once on some past hominid or is there an interminable series of ongoing acts of creation for each and every human soul?
Regardless of where he stands, I agree that his blithe dismissal of sociobiology is unwarranted and makes him look a bit silly....SH
I still wonder if it's clear exactly *how* he thinks this was done
He thinks it was an innate trait incorporated by god into our genes.
let that sink in for a bit.
It's amazing how some of worlds most famous scientists in the most prominent positions can compartmentalise their minds to amazingly. Francis Collins is a prime example.
Icthyic wrote: "He thinks it was an innate trait incorporated by god into our genes.
let that sink in for a bit."
Hmm. I assume you know I'm a believer who happens to be an enthusiastic Darwinian, and I'm afraid I'm disappointed on both counts.
As a believer, if the moral sense is specifically added by God as bits of DNA, then we appear to have been deprived of some measure of free will. People are influenced by guilt and taboo to not do things that they want to do. If much of this was deliberately imposed upon our species alone by an intelligent agent, that agent is in a sense constraining our freedom, a quandary for the theologians.
Meanwhile, as a Darwinian, I have to ask: if the moral sense is reducible to a DNA sequence, how could it have been preserved if it didn't offer a potential increase in fitness? And, if it is associated with an increase in fitness, why couldn't said DNA sequence have been produced by natural selection?
For that matter, what would've prevented God from allowing events to proceed lawfully such that one particular bipedal primate acquires said DNA sequence? Why do we need any sort of intervention to make this happen?
Well, as you suggested, I let it sink in. Now (sigh) I want it to come out and go away. I guess I should be more careful about what I ask for. Peace....SH
and I'm afraid I'm disappointed on both counts.
indeed, i expected you, and anybody who studied both theology and biology to any extent at all, would be.
that is why it feels like a kick in the nuts when someone with the knowledge of genetics that Collins has goes off like this.
Assuming he is doing this not to boost book sales or revenues for public speaking engagements, but rather that he really is trying to resolve whatever dissonance he is dealing with, it is a form of betrayal of reason, regardless of whether you view it from a scientific or theologic perspective.
it's just poor logic all the way round.
It's also why I myself am convinced that it isn't religion itself that causes this kind of disjointed logic, there has to be an underlying failure to properly compartmentalize, and that itself might be due to an underlying pathology that has yet to be elucidated in detail.
but, that's a tale for a different thread, I suppose.
have you read the book Gerard recommended in the other thread:
I recommend Marc Hauser's recent Moral Minds for a fuller discussion of our innate ethical sense.
I'd be curious to see just how well this fleshes out the philosophical issues behind this topic.
note also that there was a recent post on PT regarding the founding of the Dawkins Institute, and based on the preliminary descriptions, it sounds like they are interested in funding research into the underlying psychology as well.
time will tell if this direction will be productive, but I'm betting it will.
Thank you for the responses, everyone, they were very interesting. Prof. Meyers, I have not heard of Ursula Goodenough, but I will take a look at her work.
Heh, well, not "starting to realize" -- I have long been opposed to the idiocy of Creationism, no matter what label it has been wrapped up in, and especially when used as a substitute for real science.
BTW, thank you for taking the time to read my blog, I appreciate it. If you (or anyone else) has any corrections to offer regarding my breakdown of theory, I would welcome such.
Very true! I didn't mean to imply the opposite. I have a number of good atheist friends who are sensible and level-headed individuals, and I have a few atheist acquaintances whom I give no more consideration to than I do the religious fundamentalists (and whom are no better than such).
good luck ta ya, rev.
sounds like you have a rare but refreshing attitude on these issues, namely a keen interest in learning more.
I think you would find that attitude welcomed here, as Scott can attest, even if there is vehement disagreement with any particular idea.
btw, just in case you hadn't seen it before, you can find just about any argument fundie friends throw at you previously refuted in the Index to Creationist Claims:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
..and of course the entire talkorigins site is a warehouse of information on the theory of evolution.
the UC berkeley site is a decent store of information and teaching recommendations too:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
Icthyic: I appreciate your encouraging the Reverend's participation.
And, no, I haven't read Hauser's book. It's on my list. (ruefully) I'm about 20 books behind in reading thanks to this particular blog. Maybe this Christmas the relatives will realize that all I really want is gift cards to book stores....SH
George,
Your evidence that Polkinghorne is "nuts" is drawn from Simon Blackburn's review of his "The God of Hope and the End of the World". But Blackburn's review seems really unfair to Polkinghorne on one point at least.
I challenge any reader here to look at Polkinghorne's book and find a place where he says that he and his "interdisciplinary group" were engaged in *scientific* investigations -- as opposed to theological investigations informed by scientific knowledge. I don't think you'll find it.
Yes, that is close to the controversial divide between "facts" and "faith".
As Scott notes it also depends on individualistic behavior. Personally, I'm averse to dividing up areas of bounded rationality and keeping unnecessary assumptions. So even if I would tolerate fideism and pantheism I would not respect them but still argue for a homogeneous rationality. But personal views, including such religion, must be free.
There is also a matter of whether "it's OK for 'views of the divine' to be regarded critically". Most of religious special pleading would go with the apologists gone. But encompassing this view would remove remaining such pleading. Science, humanism, secularism, and even diverse views of atheism, are constantly criticized internally and should be externally as well. Nothing can be sacred.
Those two points would eliminate obvious conflicts and promote healthy relationships between world views. Perhaps the test would be if abortions, condoms and others life styles are removed from the religious table of concerns.