1. Comment #396471 by masubi on July 14, 2009 at 5:39 pm

Mr. Collins and the rest need to either practice what they preach or preach what they practice.

Hebrews 11:1-3
"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible."

Either you are going to be a scientist that looks for evidence to explain what we see, or you are going to be a "believer" that accepts what we see on faith...sorry Collins, you can't have it both ways.

Live a good life,

Masubi

Other Comments by masubi

2. Comment #396473 by glenister_m on July 14, 2009 at 5:44 pm

PZ Myers continues his review of their ideas on Pharyngula. Suffice it to say he completely disagrees with their ideas, and supports his views with more evidence than they apparently do.

Other Comments by glenister_m

3. Comment #396476 by locutus7 on July 14, 2009 at 5:56 pm

Mr. Meechum, the editor-in-chief of Newsweek, is a big-time born-again Christian. So no surprise here.

Other Comments by locutus7

4. Comment #396479 by HappyPrimate on July 14, 2009 at 6:07 pm

I haven't read the whole article yet but I am disappointed to see Chris Mooney standing up for making nice with the scientists who claim to be xians. The religious have no problem telling atheists that we are wrong and not only that but we will also be severly punished for being wrong. They feel they have every right to tell us this with absolutely no evidence on their side. However, should an atheist even hint that the holy believer might not have a case, nary a leg-to-stand-on, then whoa. Isn't that atheist being militant, strident and way off base. IMHO this is BullShit of the highest magnitude.

Other Comments by HappyPrimate

5. Comment #396480 by alovrin on July 14, 2009 at 6:11 pm

Newsweek has slid further down in my estimation.
That is as superficial a polemic as you will find anywhere,
hack-kneed catch phrases abound.
It is doubtful the writer(author sounds too grand for this mess) has been in the same building as any of the "new atheist" texts s/he takes a swipe at.

"the US needs more scientists like Collins"?
Because some members of the great unwashed like a bit of sugar on their medicine?
And some of them are just a little grubby, not up to their eyeballs in shite?

I'll accommodate anyone in normal circumstances., but you people, your big invisible friend is just too messy, and doesnt pay any rent!
How many more times? *sigh*

Other Comments by alovrin

6. Comment #396481 by mi9 on July 14, 2009 at 6:11 pm

Scientists who blast religion are hurting their own cause.

What cause?

Anyway... the scientists that are at war with traditional creationism are happy. The others (new atheism) who want to forbid any public manifestation of supernaturalism are sad. But that's politics. You can't win every time.

Other Comments by mi9

7. Comment #396482 by blueollie on July 14, 2009 at 6:13 pm

That's just wrong. The reasons that we don't have many scientists like Collins is because, for the vast majority of people, the kind of mind and attitudes that makes one a good scientist also makes one an agnostic or atheist.

Other Comments by blueollie

8. Comment #396483 by Ignorant Amos on July 14, 2009 at 6:16 pm

This fuckin' cracks me up!!!!

The stunning irony in the longstanding tension between science and religion in America is that many scientists who merely claim to be defending rationality from religious fundamentalism may actually be turning Americans off to science, doing more harm to their cause than good.

I really couldn't give a fiddlers fuck if the truth and the way is upsetting American fundmentalist religion...if it is what it takes then so be it....fuck em'..it's called hard cheese so suck it up.

Other Comments by Ignorant Amos

9. Comment #396484 by deejay64 on July 14, 2009 at 6:19 pm

A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down.

Refined sugar is the leading cause in childhood obesity and diabetes.

Other Comments by deejay64

10. Comment #396485 by Ignorant Amos on July 14, 2009 at 6:21 pm

Militant New Athiest? where do I sign?


It is war no matter what ya think!!!!

Other Comments by Ignorant Amos

11. Comment #396486 by mi9 on July 14, 2009 at 6:23 pm

Post modernists are more dangerous... and they are usually atheists. The only problem i see with the new atheist thing (Supernaturalism must die)... is that they are spawning their ideas beyond science... to the metaphysical.

Other Comments by mi9

12. Comment #396487 by mi9 on July 14, 2009 at 6:30 pm

Because of attitudes like this, don't you fear that people will start seing you like, to use the expression of Trey Parker, Bitchy Whiners?
I mean, even the South park guys see you like that. I think you should chill out... and start being pragmatic. It doesn't have to be a full scale war. You can go case by case in situations where religious belief and the public cross one another. I think Francis Collins don't desearve this criticism from Coyne and others...

Other Comments by mi9

13. Comment #396488 by Frankus1122 on July 14, 2009 at 6:33 pm

Consider the survey evidence, which shows that while most Americans want to have both science and religion in their lives, they'll only go so far to preserve the former at the expense of the latter. According to a 2006 Time magazine poll, for instance, 64 percent of Americans would hold on to a cherished religious belief even if science had disproved it. Many Americans who reject evolution—a stunning 46 percent, according to surveys—assuredly fall in this category.

This indicates a problem with rationality. "I don't care if it is not true, I will believe it anyway."
I just don't understand this.
You can't argue against such a position.
Can you?

Hopefully Collins will have the same attitude as the Dalai Lama:

"If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change."

I suspect he might. However, I am still leery of his belief in magic.

Other Comments by Frankus1122

14. Comment #396489 by Dustin14 on July 14, 2009 at 6:42 pm

I don't understand how Mooney can think that conceding to the anti-science crowd could at all help scientific literacy.

The problem with the accommodationist position is that it accommodates by misrepresenting the science. Take for example the idea of theistic evolution that Mooney seems to want more of, the idea that a higher power had some hand in beginning and shaping evolution but there is no science to support that position as well as the fact that it suggests a predetermined outcome which the science of evolution directly contradicts. Alternatively the idea that a god of some sort was toying with the process changing things along the way so that humanity would result, this leads to the same problem there is no evidence to suggest this, and once again leads to the idea that the process of evolution is determined by some conscious will.

I understand the argument they're making it amounts to conceding that their may have been some higher power involved in the process of evolution thus allowing the religious to learn and accept the science without it threatening there faith. Imagine however that someones faith requires them to believe the earth is 6000 years old the accommodationist position on this is that like Adam and Eve god created the world in an adult state explaining why all scientific evidence points to a much older planet. Now it seems to me that Mooneys argument also means we should accept this explanation after all people will now be able to learn and accept the science of carbon and radiometric dating without it threatening there faith, only one problem you still have people walking around thinking the earth is 6000 years old!

Which is why the accommodationist position fails we will have people who believe in evolution but believe it was consciously shaped and directed, which science contradicts. We will have people who believe radiometric dating works, but that the earth is actually 6000 years old which science contradicts. This position can only serve to further divide the public understanding of science from the actual science, which is what they are supposedly fighting against. Mooney seems to be advocating an odd strategy of victory through surrender.

Other Comments by Dustin14

15. Comment #396492 by Border Collie on July 14, 2009 at 7:12 pm

Deja vu all over again.

Other Comments by Border Collie

16. Comment #396493 by Ignorant Amos on July 14, 2009 at 7:14 pm

It's a cake and eat it issue...ya can't have both!

Other Comments by Ignorant Amos

17. Comment #396494 by Ignorant Amos on July 14, 2009 at 7:16 pm

and why would you need or want to?

Other Comments by Ignorant Amos

18. Comment #396495 by Daniella on July 14, 2009 at 7:17 pm

A far better approach is to work with religious believers to help them separate their personal religion from everybody's shared science, and move toward a much needed middle ground.

IMHO there can be no middle ground. The minute science has to bow down to incorporate people's "beliefs" it ceases to be science. Facts are facts, evidence is evidence. No amount of wishful thinking or belief in a god can (or should) change that.

The article even stated that 64% of Americans would rather “hold on to a cherished religious belief even if science had disproved it.” So scientists are supposed to what – throw away any evidence that might jeopardise these people’s precious delusions so as not to rock the boat.

What Mooney and Kirshenbaum seem to be proposing is a watering and dumbing down of science so people can still fill in the gaps with [insert woo here].

Where is the integrity in that?

Fuck off.
EDIT: As PZ would say :)

Other Comments by Daniella

19. Comment #396496 by Quine on July 14, 2009 at 7:27 pm

The idea that the religious mind cannot be changed is quite silly, else we would still be worshiping Zeus, et al. I am sure that 64% did not include teenagers, or if so, what is said and done are two different things. No, for the sake of our young people who will be making the decisions of the future, we need to speak the truth, always the truth, and let that truth show through.

Other Comments by Quine

20. Comment #396498 by Irat on July 14, 2009 at 7:38 pm

Sometimes I wonder: can these people really be making these arguments? It seems to take so much energy, so much processing power, increasingly more processing power, to retain these superstitious beliefs than to accept the evidence and rational argument. And this makes me wonder: perhaps they're doing it on purpose...perhaps they're steadily building up their brains' processing power, so that one day, they might be more intelligent than they perceive us to fancy ourselves to be?

Other Comments by Irat

21. Comment #396499 by prolibertas on July 14, 2009 at 7:54 pm

What's the alternative? Respect everyone's unfalsifiable beliefs (a.k.a closed-minded dogmatism)? It's unfalsifiable dogmatism that is contributing to the death and misery of people the world over every single day.

Disrespect for unfalsifiability is the only defence against this, and since falsifiability is the key aspect of scientific method, it is that disrespect that by extension is the only true defence of science that we can mount.

After all, it's not just the findings of science we must defend, but the very scientific means of apprehending the world that give us those findings in the first place.

Other Comments by prolibertas

22. Comment #396502 by Bonzai on July 14, 2009 at 8:22 pm

It is a big assumption and probably wishful thinking that wishy washy Christian scientists like Miller and Collins stand a better chance to bring science to believers who are hostile to science that challenges their beliefs.

I don't have scientific polls, but based on some Christian sites I scanned I have the impression that Miller and Collins' are not really more credible than Dawkins'in the fundamentalist circle,--exactly the audience that the authors think someone like Collins would be able to reach. In fact the fundies probably hate them even more because they are seen as traitors and false Christians who seek to subvert the faith from within, thus being more underhanded and worthy of scorn.

Other Comments by Bonzai

23. Comment #396503 by Mango on July 14, 2009 at 8:30 pm

When about half of Americans reject evolution because of their religious beliefs, maybe in this moment we do need people like Francis Collins and Ken Miller to be the public faces of science (?).

Other Comments by Mango

24. Comment #396507 by kraut on July 14, 2009 at 8:46 pm

It is rather simple - when discussing science, I do not give a shit about your religion. When you talk science, I have no desire to know which god you worship. So - when you publicize science, leave your particular god at home.
Do not try to mix science with religion - simple, isn't it?
And if someone claims that his/her particular god or gods influence is observable - then someone has to set him straight or ask for testable, falsifiable evidence, or tell him/her to just fuck off.

It is rather simple. Just try to prove with evidence, unequivocally, which one of the several million proclaimed manifestations between christianity, hinduism, shamanism, judaism, shintoism, islam, ketherers, paganism, gnosticism
etc. etc. pp/pp is the right one.

Other than that - leave fucking religion out of any, and I mean any, discussion regarding scientific topics.
That how far my accomodationism goes. And if you insist to mix the two - you deserve your arse getting kicked. Simple.

Other Comments by kraut

25. Comment #396516 by squinky on July 14, 2009 at 9:02 pm

Mooney is really starting to piss me off! His arguments are so vapid: 'be conciliatory, be gentle, be accomodating' which is another way of saying 'be dishonest'.

He writes:
Someone like Collins, by contrast, can convince those who think science conflicts with their beliefs that this needn't be the case...It's not just Collins; consider the words of the Dalai Lama: "If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change."
So which is it Chris? There's no conflict or the conflict means that religious beliefs are wrong (Dalai Lama). Science throughout history has castrated religious thought and philosophy with every contact.

Mooney is a fuckwit and his accomodationism is hurting our chances of ever ridding the Earth of supernaturalism with its only antidote: reason and evidence. Since Mooney told Coyne to shutup, I'll return the favor. Mooney, shut the fuck up!

Other Comments by squinky

26. Comment #396518 by Rev.JeffroBodean on July 14, 2009 at 9:07 pm

Besides completely misrepresenting PZ Meyers position (and, by the way, the communion wafer incident), their argument is ass-backwards. The only thing scientists are required to present is evidence that supports their claim. Whether or not that evidence agrees with someones beliefs is irrelevant.

Other Comments by Rev.JeffroBodean

27. Comment #396519 by Steven Mading on July 14, 2009 at 9:09 pm

I haven't yet read the article, but here's my guess as to the summary of what it says: Blah blah blah NOMA blah blah NOMA blah blah fundamentalist atheist blah blah blah NOMA blah blah closed-minded blah blah NOMA blah NOMA.

To anyone who took the time to read it, is this pretty much it, like pretty much every other article that has come out in this vein? If so, I don't see the point in reading it. These articles all make exactly the same point, all based on the incorrect notion that religion plays nice and stays out of the domain of science when clearly this is not the case.

Other Comments by Steven Mading

28. Comment #396521 by Dr Doctor on July 14, 2009 at 9:10 pm

Post modernists are more dangerous... and they are usually atheists. The only problem i see with the new atheist thing (Supernaturalism must die)... is that they are spawning their ideas beyond science... to the metaphysical.

I don't know about you, but I find that terrifying. But then I leap onto tabletops when mice scuttle across the kitchen floor.

masubi put it right:

Either you are going to be a scientist that looks for evidence to explain what we see, or you are going to be a "believer" that accepts what we see on faith...sorry Collins, you can't have it both ways.

Other Comments by Dr Doctor

29. Comment #396523 by Frankus1122 on July 14, 2009 at 9:24 pm

Comment #396516 by squinky

...'be conciliatory, be gentle, be accomodating' which is another way of saying 'be dishonest'.

Collins and Miller are 'Truth Lite'(TM).

Other Comments by Frankus1122

30. Comment #396533 by Raiko on July 14, 2009 at 10:56 pm

Case? I tell you what the case is, Mr. Mooney and Mr. Kirshenbaum: The 'case' is intolerance, the suppression of minorities and even majorities like women, murder (abortion doctors), cruises against freedom of speech and the rights of women over their bodies, the protected abuse of children, the most ludicrous justifications for wars and crimes... do I need to continue?

Do these ignoramuses really think that these problems can be addressed and treated by coo-talking religion, babying faith-heads and patting apologetics? Do they seriously think, even if their approach had only a fraction of a point to it, that it is just and good to NOT speak out about these things and their root cause in very distinct and direct, alerting ways?

We're NOT talking about a couple weirdos here in the Brazilian rain forest or the Australian desert! We're talking about large groups among us who try to impede onto the rights of everyone and wish to push their backdated ideas of moral and education upon us and our children.

It looks to me as if Mr. Mooney has indeed relocated to the moon from where the earth is just a pretty, happy blue planet - while Mr. Kirshenbaum is sitting in his cherry tree, his vision heavily clouded by white and pink leaves and his tummy filled with the sweet cherry taste of prosperity and social security. Sadly some atheists are sending out not-so-pretty postcards from planet earth, and that's a problem. Postcards should be made all pretty with photoshop!

Well, you two - get the hell off the computer. There's a world with some real problems out there.

Other Comments by Raiko

31. Comment #396535 by flying goose on July 14, 2009 at 11:04 pm

The fundamentalist mindset is one that by definition is difficult to change. That said how many real fundmentalists are there?

Perhaps their real impact is on the scientifically/philosophically illiterate man on the religious clapham ominbus. Or Joe religious public.

It is these upon whom the likes of Collins and Miller may indeed have a benificial effect.

I have watched several Collins videos. What comes across to me is who want to make the case for science to his religious audience and the case for religion to his non religious audience.

His credibility with the former will only serve to disinhance his credibiilty with the latter.

Collins is a good scientist, PZ said this last week on a premier Radio.

Some people are beyond PZ and Richard's reach.
They are not beyond Collins'.

This is the real politik, America is the home of the pragmatic.

Other Comments by flying goose

32. Comment #396545 by Adrian Bartholomew on July 15, 2009 at 12:07 am

Comment #396535 by flying goose
Quote: “This is the real politik, America is the home of the pragmatic.”

Are the Christians scientists like Miller and Collins more effective than non Christian ones at getting the regular Christians to accept science and evidence? My suspicion is that they aren’t and if I’m right then the REAL pragmatic thing to do would be to disavow them. Either way I’d like to see some evidence on the matter. I mean if the evidence shows Collins to be 10 times more effective than a non Christian in the role then even I would reconsider my opinion that he’s a bad appointment.

Other Comments by Adrian Bartholomew

33. Comment #396551 by stephenray on July 15, 2009 at 12:39 am

Look at it this way.

At least he is a scientist. There are some American politicians who would have been happy to appoint Jerry Falwell jr.

Other Comments by stephenray

34. Comment #396554 by Follow Peter Egan on July 15, 2009 at 12:43 am

According to a 2006 Time magazine poll, for instance, 64 percent of Americans would hold on to a cherished religious belief even if science had disproved it. Many Americans who reject evolution—a stunning 46 percent, according to surveys—assuredly fall in this category.

I'm picking the same quote as Frankus1122.

Why is this reported like it's a good thing£ Why don't many people realise that the truth has nothing to do with what they wish were true£

Other Comments by Follow Peter Egan

35. Comment #396582 by notsobad on July 15, 2009 at 2:08 am

Someone like Collins, by contrast, can convince those who think science conflicts with their beliefs that this needn't be the case..

evidence?

Other Comments by notsobad

36. Comment #396583 by Jos Gibbons on July 15, 2009 at 2:11 am

Accommodationism is what we've been using ever since the Scopes trial. Gallop polls prove it hasn't budged the population an inch in terms of accepting evolution, or any other scientific facts said polls looked into, such as the age of the Earth or universe. Only time will tell whether the alternative will help matters. Perhaps people like this article's authors should give us a chance before saying, "No! No! Our way is better!" If they are right, we'll never have any progress at all, since the better method makes no progress. Hopefully, their hypothesis is wrong.

Other Comments by Jos Gibbons

37. Comment #396585 by PERSON on July 15, 2009 at 2:24 am

I think this comes out of the polling mindset. If most people believe it, you should go with it. It's quite reasonable up to a point, but I think it gets taken too far in the US, and pols get manipulated by carefully structured and timed polls. There is also the sanctified status of "compromise" in the US political insider's culture, which seems to me stronger amongst traditional media pundits than politicians nowadays.

In terms of not accepting what one does not like, I think it is vital to consider popular opinion and take it into account. One can refuse to be dominated by it, that's fine. But to act as if it's inconsequential is anti-democratic. The response needs to be to persuade people via education and argument (rather than public relations(*)), not to simply run roughshod over it as has been the norm in the US for a long time.


(*) The guy who coined the term "public relations" (Leonard Bernstein IIRC, Freud's nephew) did so as a re-branding of the term "propaganda".

Other Comments by PERSON

38. Comment #396589 by GBile on July 15, 2009 at 2:35 am

An 'american' problem ??

... the United States needs more scientists like Collins—researchers who show by their prominence and their example that a good scientist can still retain religious beliefs. The stunning irony in the longstanding tension between science and religion in America is that many scientists who merely claim to be defending rationality from religious fundamentalism may actually be turning Americans off to science, doing more harm to their cause than good.

Turning people off to science in my spot on planet earth, the Netherlands, has little to do with religion (but more with the (perceived) difficulty of the matter). Also our high-school curriculum is not determined by religious schoolboards, so many students are well equipped to pursue scientific careers.

Maybe America needs their Collins-types, the world doesn't.

Other Comments by GBile

39. Comment #396595 by Jack Rawlinson on July 15, 2009 at 3:06 am

For those who don't follow the fun on Pharyngula (shame on you!), PZ is tearing into Mooney and Kirshenbaum with great force over there...

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

40. Comment #396619 by Peter Beattie on July 15, 2009 at 5:18 am

notsobad, #35:

evidence?

Not Mooney and Kirshenbaum's area of expertise, I'm afraid.

Other Comments by Peter Beattie

41. Comment #396627 by NewEnglandBob on July 15, 2009 at 5:49 am

The militant New Accommodationists like Mooney and Kirshenbaum are just embarrassing themselves.

Newsweek has always been a second rate hack magazine.

Other Comments by NewEnglandBob

42. Comment #396629 by Bonzai on July 15, 2009 at 5:58 am

Mango

When about half of Americans reject evolution because of their religious beliefs, maybe in this moment we do need people like Francis Collins and Ken Miller to be the public faces of science

As I said above, I have some doubts in this strategy even if I am only interested in expediency.

The folks who reject evolution because of religious beliefs are the fundie. The wishy washy, COE type Christians don't need poster boys like Collins and Miller to sell evolution to them, they already accept it.

Now I am not sure people like Collins and Miller actually have a lot of credibility with the fundies. To them they are heretics and sell outs who are probably even worse than avowed atheists like Dawkins.

Other Comments by Bonzai

43. Comment #396636 by Steve Zara on July 15, 2009 at 6:35 am

Comment #396535 by flying goose

Collins may be a good scientist in some respects. But imagine a historian who was good at finding out data, but rubbish at interpreting. He says that everything points to lizard-men working behind the scenes.

And as for accommodationism:

Let's take the Christian fish symbol, and make it nasty. Education about evolution is like an angler fish. Big mouth with nasty pointy teeth. People like Collins are the lure. They dangle in the light, and attract all the littler fish. Then, GULP. Not all the fish get swallowed. Some just manage to escape. Some are left with half a tail, or a fin missing.

It is factually wrong to promote accommodationism. Evolution is nasty. It bites at faith. To dangle Miller and Collins in the light is to lie, to deceive. I think that accommodationism isn't just philosophically bad, and factually wrong, but it is ethically bad as well.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

44. Comment #396637 by MaxD on July 15, 2009 at 6:38 am

There are no lizard men?
God damn it.

Other Comments by MaxD

45. Comment #396639 by Peacebeuponme on July 15, 2009 at 6:39 am

Steve

Do you demand that your GP is atheist?

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

46. Comment #396642 by Steve Zara on July 15, 2009 at 6:46 am

Comment #396639 by Peacebeuponme

GPs aren't scientists.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

47. Comment #396643 by Cartomancer on July 15, 2009 at 6:46 am

There are no lizard men?

No. Of course there are no lizard men. What a silly idea! No lizard men at all. Not even that odd skink-boy you could swear was lurking just beyond your vision and whispering nefarious instructions from the Grand High Frog. Now get back to whatever it was you were doing and forget we ever existed...

Other Comments by Cartomancer

48. Comment #396648 by MaxD on July 15, 2009 at 6:59 am

Cartomancer!
A nefarious Lizard man! Who'duva thunk it?
We are now, very much, on to you.

Other Comments by MaxD

49. Comment #396649 by phasmagigas on July 15, 2009 at 6:59 am

Do you demand that your GP is atheist£

i must admit im a little paranoid about a doctor knowing my lack of beliefs (not that they would ever know) if they were a christian for eg (here in the USA)you could simply never know if they would compromise their service to you on that basis simply out of spite.
funnily enough i was in the public library july 3rd (ie the day before independence day) the server was wishing all the borrowers a 'happy 4th', i thought that was generous but i didnt get the same treatment, perhaps my accent (uk) meant she thought it perhaps insensitive, I did play with the idea that it could have been the copy of coynes 'why evolution is true' that i had just borrowed.

maybe, maybe not, but consider the absolute scorn that some religious people throw at those liberal, america hating evolutionists.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

50. Comment #396650 by mbscience on July 15, 2009 at 6:59 am

collins and the people who want to put collins high in science are stupid.
collins is a kindd of priest who calls him a scientist.
collins and evangelical scientists should be in church not in science.

Other Comments by mbscience