|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
 Posted - 05/05/2009 : 01:50:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Look, I agree that Mooner went a bit overboard comparing the NCSE to the Discovery Institute, since it isn't to that point yet. But that's what it will become if the accommodationalists succeed in silencing all other viewpoints |
And I agree with pretty much everything you wrote, including the comment above. But if it's presently not comparable in scale or in severity, in principle, the presentation of evolutionary science mainly as if it were a scientific theistic belief system (almost as if the Methodists had discovered natural selection), is just as screwy, dishonest and wrong as the IDiots passing Creationism off as "science." The unbalanced process of inclusion and exclusion of spokespeople can have that effect.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 05/05/2009 01:52:26 |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2009 : 02:55:38 [Permalink]
|
Humbert:
So are you now back peddling, Kil? |
Yeah, I just read that again now that I have cooled down and I'm sorry I didn't delete it before you got to it.
Humbert:
Are atheist resources promoted by the NCSE to the same degree that theistic evolution is? |
No. Scott says that science is agnostic. That is, it studies the natural world, because that is all it can do. Science takes no position on religion. Theistic evolution is not promoted. But it is pointed out that aside from a literal take on the bible, religion and science are not incompatible.
The site does have a section on religion; I'm sure the idea being that it is religion that science, and especially evolution is up against. I am willing to defend that on the grounds that it's not atheists who they have to convince. So why, if atheists are solidly in the evolution camp, and we know they are, would they spend time trying to convince them that their belief is not incompatible with evolution? What would be the point of promoting atheistic resources given the nature of their mission?
What baffles me about this debate is it's as though some of us have lost site of exactly who it is they are trying to convince.
Humbert:
Pandering to their misconceptions is a cop-out. |
Again, they are not selling theistic evolution. They are selling science to be taught as science in science classrooms. Since the people that they have to convince are mostly Christians, I don't think it's pandering to allow them their faith and at the same time push them toward a purely naturalistic understanding of how science works. The point is, science is not atheistic or theistic. Those are philosophical positions and I think the NCSE makes that distinction clear. I know that Scott does.
Humbert:
I find it insulting that you consider promoting magical thinking--to the exclusion of other viewpoints--a "practical" necessity. |
What they are promoting is science. I don't know what magical thinking your talking about. Do you really think that their mission should also be to tell Christians that they are full of shit? Well that's exactly what they do when Christians throw down religious roadblocks to teaching evolution correctly, or attempt to have creationism taught in science classrooms. That's their job and they are really good at it.
Humbert:
The NCSE definitely should not be in the business of encouraging theistic evolution. |
Hey, I'm gonna need someone show me how they are doing that. Either I'm blind or you have built a strawman. Allowing a personal belief, which they have pretty much no control over, and promoting a personal belief are way different. Remember, their mission has never been, nor should it be, to do away with religion. That's our job.
Humbert:
Right now it is being hijacked by supporters who wish to silence all competing voices solely on the unsupported belief that they and they alone know how best to reach the public and increase acceptance of evolution over the long term. |
What's your evidence for that accusation? Maybe you should read the transcripts from Dover or more recently Texas and tell me if you still think they have been hijacked. Last I knew, Eugenie Scott was still in charge.
Okay, you know what sucks? I knew I would be in the minority on this one, bu |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2009 : 04:47:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Okay, you know what sucks? I knew I would be in the minority on this one, but I didn't think I would be alone… |
[Sh]it happens. Been there, done that, probably doing it again now. Embrace the solitude as though it were a virtue.| How is it one fucking atheist can write an essay on the NCSE and suddenly it's just a given that they are promoting “theistic evolution” and “falsely presenting evolutionary biology as though it were the primarily the creature of theists”? |
The point of the "anti-accommodationists" (what ugly terms!) is not that NCSE is promoting a theist agenda, but that atheist spokespeople and viewpoints are being hustled to the back of the group photograph. The atheists in this dispute don't want to denigrate or silence the theistic evolutionists. They just want the same access and respect for their own ideas. Neither do they want NCSE to take an atheistic position.
Do the evolutionary theists at NCSE want the same neutrality? I'm not sure. They certainly haven't been speaking out against the way the atheist scientists have been sidelined. I don't know of a single "New Atheist" who wants the theists shut out, not even the evangelical preachers that Eugenie Scott welcomes.
NCSE should think about all this a bit more. I think the NCSE needs the atheists more than it needs preachers, though both could work together on NCSE properly neutral agenda. Atheists need NCSE, but they also deserve respect and acknowledgment. Especially as they are arguably the main force in this country working for science and secularism. Atheists themselves respect the idea of working with theists in areas where they agree on goals. They should not be asked, or forced, to stand in the shadows in the background.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 05/05/2009 04:48:36 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2009 : 05:03:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Did any of you read the Rationally Speaking article by Massimo Pigliucci? |
Yup, now that you mention it. And Massimo makes this point:| Jerry Coyne, however (with whom I often disagree, especially on scientific matters), does have a point that Scott and the NCSE should address: if the National Center for Science Education claims neutrality with respect to the relationship between science and religion, then why — as Coyne observes — do they list on their web site (under “recommended books”) a plethora of obviously biased books on the subject? Why does the NCSE feel ok to endorse the vacuous writings (as it pertains to the alleged compatibility between science and religion) by pro-religion scientists like Francis Collins, Ken Miller, and Simon Conway Morris, to name a few? Either these books should be ignored, or the NCSE should also recommend the (equally questionable) works of Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and so on. Either science can neither prove or disprove gods, or it can, the philosophical/methodological distinction cuts both ways. Genie, what's up? |
But then Massimo Pigliucci goes off the deep end, actually suggesting that Richard Dawkins would use the resources of the Inquisition, if he only had them:| And really, look at Dawkins' prescription here. According to him we should be even more “contemptuous” than the religious fanatics are; we should “really hurt” with our “sharp barbs”; we “can't lose” because truth is clearly on our side. One almost gets the feeling that if Dawkins had the resources of the Inquisition at his disposal he might just use them in the name of scientific Truth (a philosophical oxymoron, by the way). Thanks for the public relations disaster, Dick! |
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 05/05/2009 05:24:58 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2009 : 08:45:48 [Permalink]
|
H.H. said:
| To pretend that it would only work if atheists wouldn't be so vocal is bordering on the delusional, |
Bordering? I think you are being too kind.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2009 : 09:07:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
No. Scott says that science is agnostic. That is, it studies the natural world, because that is all it can do. Science takes no position on religion. Theistic evolution is not promoted. But it is pointed out that aside from a literal take on the bible, religion and science are not incompatible. |
Right, that's NOMA, and that's precisely what I'm objecting to. I don't think science and religion are compatible, and I don't think the NCSE should be in the business of telling people that they are. Just relate the science. Stay out of the philosophical arena.
| Again, they are not selling theistic evolution. They are selling science to be taught as science in science classrooms. Since the people that they have to convince are mostly Christians, I don't think it's pandering to allow them their faith and at the same time push them toward a purely naturalistic understanding of how science works. The point is, science is not atheistic or theistic. Those are philosophical positions and I think the NCSE makes that distinction clear. I know that Scott does. |
It's not making it clear if the NCSE is telling people that science and religion are compatible. That's a philosophical position, Kil!
| The NCSE definitely should not be in the business of encouraging theistic evolution. |
Hey, I'm gonna need someone show me how they are doing that. Either I'm blind or you have built a strawman. Allowing a personal belief, which they have pretty much no control over, and promoting a personal belief are way different. Remember, their mission has never been, nor should it be, to do away with religion. That's our job. |
Right. The issue was that the the NCSE listed a raft of books and resources detailing theistic evolution on their webpage without so much as a whiff of opposing arguments. That becomes de facto promotion.
| How is it one fucking atheist can write an essay on the NCSE and suddenly it's just a given that they are promoting “theistic evolution” and “falsely presenting evolutionary biology as though it were the primarily the creature of theists”? |
Well, Richard B. Hoppe, for one, has admitted there is a problem.
Coyne is right in one respect, and I withdraw my wholesale rejection of his argument. I think (writing now as a Life Member) that NCSE has recently made a mistake in going beyond simply pointing to individuals and organizations who have somehow reconciled their science and religious beliefs to counter the creationist equation of evolution with atheism. In the essays by Peter M. J. Hess that apparently are the basis of the NCSE Faith Project, there is an endorsement of a particular view of the relationship, an adaptation of Gould's Nonoverlapping magisteria with a dose of complementarian thinking.
In its Faith Project, then, I think that NCSE has gone beyond its remit and past where it can be effective. I now think – in agreement with Coyne, PZ, and others – that it should back off from describing particular ways of reconciling science and religion. Pointing to religious people and organizations who have made their peace with science and evolution is appropriate, but going past that to describing particular ways of making that peace is a mistake. NCSE ought not wade int |
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2009 : 09:29:58 [Permalink]
|
Personally I think scientists need to get off the neutrality band wagon. There is no such thing as theistic evolution.....or at least there shouldn't be.
I think it's time for scientists to take a stand. Religion and Science are NOT compatible (IMHO)I think it's time for the NCSE to take a stance on religion. This whole "science is science" and "religion is religion" is a load of foul smelling crap and it's beginning to affect our progress as human beings. "Non-Overlapping Magisteria".....screw that!....No such thing! Gould was an idiot on that one.
No more white glove treatment. No more pandering to the ignorant and the deluded. Religion and Science are NOT compatible (yep...I had to say it twice). |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
| Edited by - astropin on 05/05/2009 22:02:29 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2009 : 11:09:49 [Permalink]
|
With diametrically opposed epistemologies, science and religion are not compatible. Calling Gould's NOMA "compatibility" is like saying your dog and your cat are compatible because you keep them in separate cages.
What the NCSE, NAS, AAAS and others are saying:Science and religion are compatible. What they should be saying:Some people have found ways of thinking about their science and their religion such that scientific discoveries pose no difficulty for their personal faith. The latter is undeniably true. The former is ludicrously false (and it's ludicrously false philosophy - not science - as H. pointed out). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2009 : 11:18:51 [Permalink]
|
Religion and sceince are not the same thing. This does not mean they are incompatible. They certainly aren't chocolate and peanutbutter, but there could be some religion out there that holds logic, the scientific method, and diligent peer review up as standards to live by and promote.
If that group of people existed, and decided to call themselves a religion, it would be a religion, right? I mean, that is the only criteria for a religion, just saying that it is a religion, isn't it?
We've had this particular debate on this forum before. My personal opinion is that there are degrees of religion, and the "Ken Miller" kind of religion does not interfere with the teaching or, or the doing of, science. On the opposite end you have the "Ken Ham" kind of religion, that denies all science unless it agrees with a literal interpretation of a specific religious text. Lets call it the "KEN METHOD" of evaluating religious compatibility with science.
Don't get me wrong here, on the matter of religion in general I fall over in the Dawkins end of the spectrum. I think that the moderate religions enable the extremists, and that Dawkins is probably right in his assertion that the available evidence can support the claim of "no god exists".
The question of "compatibility" is really a case-by-case one. If a religious person refuses to accept an observed fact, because of their pre-existing religious belief, then their religion is not compatible with science. If a religious person looks at the observed fact and accepts it, then there is no incompatibility.
On the idea of NOMA.... I can't disagree enough (with the concept of NOMA). Religion and science are attempting to do the same thing, explain the world in terms we can understand. How can that possibly be non-overlapping?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2009 : 11:18:52 [Permalink]
|
Mooner:
But if it's presently not comparable in scale or in severity, in principle, the presentation of evolutionary science mainly as if it were a scientific theistic belief system (almost as if the Methodists had discovered natural selection), is just as screwy, dishonest and wrong as the IDiots passing Creationism off as "science." The unbalanced process of inclusion and exclusion of spokespeople can have that effect. |
Yeah, but that's not what they're doing. They present evolution as a naturalistic science that says nothing about God. Befor accusing them of being a den of theists, maybe it would be helpful to look at their staff and who is doing the talking for them:
NCSE staff and Board members are available to talk about evolution or creationism. No doubt Peter M. J. Hess, is the controversial figure here. But he is only one of a very impressive staff that is hardly unbalanced, unless you count the one theist as tipping the scale.
We have at least one opinion here that religion and science are not compatible. So what do we tell the scientist who are doing good work and also happen to be theists? Should their work be rejected on what, atheistic grounds? “Here comes the new boss, same as the old boss.” Isn't that the end result of that kind of thinking? Whether you agree with Gould or not, the reality is that plenty of good science is being done by people of faith.
How about this. The NCSE goes off to fight its usual battle, on Christian turf, but tells the school board that they must abandon their faith because they can't have that and science at the same time. The NCSE broadens its message, in a clear rejection of NOMA to include an assault on faith itself, because faith and science are not compatible. I will grant that magical thinking should be attacked. But not by the NCSE unless that thinking is used to defeat teaching good science in science classrooms. Their mission should stay focused on a fairly narrow set of criteria. Attacking faith itself would be self-defeating. Also, impossible, because you can't prove or disprove a negative.
We also have opinions that essentially agree with my position that rejecting evolution based on religious grounds sets up a false dichotomy, but that the NCSE has gone too far. I may be leaning toward some agreement on that, even though I see what and why they are promoting the kinds of books they promote, because of who they are trying to reach. What has not been mentioned in this debate are the really good scientific resources that they also promote in their Evolution Education area. It ain't "theistic evolution" by a long shot. And yet, they are playing to the same audience that is looking at the religion area.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2009 : 11:20:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by astropin
Personally I think scientists need to get of the neutrality band wagon. There is no such thing as theistic evolution.....or at least there shouldn't be.
I think it's time for scientists to take a stand. Religion and Science are NOT compatible (IMHO)I think it's time for the NCSE to take a stance on religion. This whole "science is science" and "religion is religion" is a load of foul smelling crap and it's beginning to affect our progress as human beings. "Non-Overlapping Magisteria".....screw that!....No such thing! Gould was an idiot on that one.
No more white glove treatment. No more pandering to the ignorant and the deluded. Religion and Science are NOT compatible (yep...I had to say it twice).
|
I disagree with you. Considering how God is defined by monotheistic religions, reason and Science are just plainly not appropriate to investigate the subject... |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2009 : 11:21:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
What they should be saying:Some people have found ways of thinking about their science and their religion such that scientific discoveries pose no difficulty for their personal faith. The latter is undeniably true. The former is ludicrously false (and it's ludicrously false philosophy - not science - as H. pointed out).
|
I can live with that. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2009 : 11:24:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by astropin
Personally I think scientists need to get of the neutrality band wagon. There is no such thing as theistic evolution.....or at least there shouldn't be.
I think it's time for scientists to take a stand. Religion and Science are NOT compatible (IMHO)I think it's time for the NCSE to take a stance on religion. This whole "science is science" and "religion is religion" is a load of foul smelling crap and it's beginning to affect our progress as human beings. "Non-Overlapping Magisteria".....screw that!....No such thing! Gould was an idiot on that one.
No more white glove treatment. No more pandering to the ignorant and the deluded. Religion and Science are NOT compatible (yep...I had to say it twice).
|
I both agree and disagree with that. I agree philosophically 100%. But as for NCSE's policies, I want them to be truly neutral. The presence, and voices of, theists are useful to gaining NCSE's gaols, as are those of atheists.
That means promoting no version of NOMA, allowing neither theist nor atheist domination, just an advocacy of secular naturalistic materialism as the basis of good science teaching. NCSE should simply admit that it is a coalition of diverse pro-science people who disagree on many things (including religion), but stand united on the one issue of solid, secular science teaching standards. They should state that they take no philosophical or religious stance as an organization, aside from supporting good science education.
The fact of life is that atheists will no longer tolerate being second-class citizens, especially in "secular" organizations. If NCSE keeps up what it is doing, atheists will not retreat, not surrender, but keep fighting for their rights and ideals within the organization -- or separate from it. NCSE weakens itself by treating its atheists as pariahs.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2009 : 11:41:50 [Permalink]
|
Dude:
Religion and sceince are not the same thing. This does not mean they are incompatible. They certainly aren't chocolate and peanutbutter, but there could be some religion out there that holds logic, the scientific method, and diligent peer review up as standards to live by and promote.
If that group of people existed, and decided to call themselves a religion, it would be a religion, right? I mean, that is the only criteria for a religion, just saying that it is a religion, isn't it?
We've had this particular debate on this forum before. My personal opinion is that there are degrees of religion, and the "Ken Miller" kind of religion does not interfere with the teaching or, or the doing of, science. On the opposite end you have the "Ken Ham" kind of religion, that denies all science unless it agrees with a literal interpretation of a specific religious text. Lets call it the "KEN METHOD" of evaluating religious compatibility with science. |
Recommended reading:
The Creation/Evolution Continuum by Eugenie Scott
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2009 : 12:10:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
We have at least one opinion here that religion and science are not compatible. So what do we tell the scientist who are doing good work and also happen to be theists? |
When he tries to claim that religion and science are compatible and holds himself out as an example, we point out that all of his good scientific work completely neglects the god question, either pro or con, and then ask him again how his religion in any way informs his science. Because it doesn't. Faith runs contrary to modern empiricism, and he knows that, which is why his god never appears in his journal articles.
How about this as an analogy: faith and science are compatible in the same way as an automobile and a smiley-face t-shirt are compatible. You can own both, and even wear one while driving the other, but the t-shirt doesn't actually add anything to the car's performance. And if you try to put the t-shirt on while driving and manage to get it tangled around your head, you're probably going to crash. So if your goal is to get someplace (to do science), the t-shirt (faith) becomes irrelevant at best, and a danger at worst. And the t-shirt is also irrelevant to the car while you're not driving.
(Another danger: if you lose the gas-cap to your science, trying to plug the hole with religion is a really bad idea. Your t-shirt religion also makes for a lousy hose-clamp, and won't work at all as a fan belt. At best, if the seats in your science get too hot, you might be able to gain a little temporary comfort by sitting on your religion. Am I stretching this analogy too far?)| What has not been mentioned in this debate are the really good scientific resources that they also promote in their Evolution Education area. |
But you're wrong. It's been mentioned over and over again that what the NCSE has been doing has been great stuff, and that they're a great group. It's been recently that their "religion and science are compatible" stuff has been appearing, and because of that they're being criticized for going off what was a good, functional and truly religiously neutral game plan.
If anything, the "anti-accomodationists" want the NCSE to go back to focus on what they were doing a couple years ago. They (we) certainly don't want the NCSE to start ripping on scientists for having faith. There are other groups (and individuals) for that, ones which are independent of any promote-science-education mission. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Is the NCSE too accommodating to religion?
