Post by humphreyclarke on Apr 23, 2009 9:41:41 GMT
Ok so Jerry Coyne is going on another rant again about Kenneth Miller and the 'accommodationists' in the U.S. Basically he is saying that the National Academy of Sciences, and the National Center for Science Education should not be putting information on their site which says that mainstream Theism is perfectly compatible with Evolution.
whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/04/22/truckling-to-the-faithful-a-spoonful-of-jesus-helps-darwin-go-down/#comment-1446
Dawkins has also commented here
richarddawkins.net/article,3767,Truckling-to-the-Faithful-A-Spoonful-of-Jesus-Helps-Darwin-Go-Down,Jerry-Coyne#368197
Of course the NAS and the NCSE are being pragmatic. If they imply that evolution leads inevitably to atheism as Dawkins and Provine argue, then it is not 'religiously neutral' and there would be problems teaching it in schools. Furthermore it would be a massive recruitment boost to the intelligent design movement which is currently spreading over the world and appealing to a variety of faiths. Coyne wants to say that they should not be endorsing any worldview (they aren't really endorsing theistic evolution, they are merely drawing attention to it). If they snub the evangelical atheists they should also be snubbing theistic evolutionists.
I think this is a massive error and I hope the NAS and the NCSE don't bow to pressure. A neutral stance isn't really an option as it could be interpreted as an implicit endorsement of metaphysical naturalism. It will hand the task of 'mouthpiece' over to people like Coyne and Dawkins which will only stir up further trouble. These organisations need to be doing something on behalf of their members to combat ID and the accommodationist strategy is the best option.
What does everyone else think?
I have to say I haven't been very impressed with Dr Coyne. His arguments against Miller were fairly pitiful and this is just plain wrong:
They know perfectly well — as did Darwin himself — that evolutionary biology is and always has been a serious threat to faith.
Really!.
It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist.
I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. I can see no reason why a man, or other animals, may not have been aboriginally produced by other laws, and that all these laws may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every future event and consequence
In his autobiography he raises a whole host of objections to Christianity but only mentions evolution in passing (in reference to the weakening of the old Paley design argument). The main threats that he perceives are related to the immorality of the old testament, the problem of suffering and evil and the many differing religious traditions.
darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F1497&viewtype=text&pageseq=1
whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/04/22/truckling-to-the-faithful-a-spoonful-of-jesus-helps-darwin-go-down/#comment-1446
Dawkins has also commented here
richarddawkins.net/article,3767,Truckling-to-the-Faithful-A-Spoonful-of-Jesus-Helps-Darwin-Go-Down,Jerry-Coyne#368197
Of course the NAS and the NCSE are being pragmatic. If they imply that evolution leads inevitably to atheism as Dawkins and Provine argue, then it is not 'religiously neutral' and there would be problems teaching it in schools. Furthermore it would be a massive recruitment boost to the intelligent design movement which is currently spreading over the world and appealing to a variety of faiths. Coyne wants to say that they should not be endorsing any worldview (they aren't really endorsing theistic evolution, they are merely drawing attention to it). If they snub the evangelical atheists they should also be snubbing theistic evolutionists.
I think this is a massive error and I hope the NAS and the NCSE don't bow to pressure. A neutral stance isn't really an option as it could be interpreted as an implicit endorsement of metaphysical naturalism. It will hand the task of 'mouthpiece' over to people like Coyne and Dawkins which will only stir up further trouble. These organisations need to be doing something on behalf of their members to combat ID and the accommodationist strategy is the best option.
What does everyone else think?
I have to say I haven't been very impressed with Dr Coyne. His arguments against Miller were fairly pitiful and this is just plain wrong:
They know perfectly well — as did Darwin himself — that evolutionary biology is and always has been a serious threat to faith.
Really!.
It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist.
I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. I can see no reason why a man, or other animals, may not have been aboriginally produced by other laws, and that all these laws may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every future event and consequence
In his autobiography he raises a whole host of objections to Christianity but only mentions evolution in passing (in reference to the weakening of the old Paley design argument). The main threats that he perceives are related to the immorality of the old testament, the problem of suffering and evil and the many differing religious traditions.
darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F1497&viewtype=text&pageseq=1
