1. Comment #435571 by Mbee on November 26, 2009 at 9:54 pm

Religion and Evolution can only live side by side if religions modify their dogma to fit the facts. While they continue to deny the facts of the Universe and Evolution their religions will continue to decline. The more people that look at the evidence of both sides and actually think about it the sooner humanity will be able to move forward. Unfortunately many will continue to cling to their outdated mythology for fear of facing the truth.

Other Comments by Mbee

2. Comment #435573 by Sally Luxmoore on November 26, 2009 at 9:59 pm

I do like Michael Shermer.

This article can best be described as intelligent common sense. He analyses the various oppositions to accepting evolution very clearly.

I was also very interested in his description of the political leanings of the different viewpoints.

I differ from him in that he appears to be arguing for an accomodationist stance, whereas I genuinely think that science and religion are incompatible.

However, a very good article.

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

3. Comment #435575 by JemyM on November 26, 2009 at 10:04 pm

Religion can live side by side with evolution, it have done so since religion was created.

Other Comments by JemyM

4. Comment #435576 by healthphysicist on November 26, 2009 at 10:05 pm

It sounds like Shermer is trying to build a weak bridge.

Those folks into the nebulous spiritual kind of religion, who don't adhere to an organized religious dogma, may find his points useful.

But religion is also about power.

If the age of the Earth or the nature of man are not to be believed through the Bible, then the Bible has no authority and those that claim to understand it, have no authority. They are not going to let go of a billion dollar per year business (I live in the US).

If Adam & Eve is a myth, then there was no Fall of Man (or original sin) and no need for Jesus to die on the cross (I know not all sects adhere to this, but many do).

The notion of sin (in an absolute sense) disappears, because we are animals, and animals don't sin. The whole concept of Heaven and Hell disappears.

Evolution is a much greater threat to many religious sects than just a simple reinterpretation of Genesis.

Other Comments by healthphysicist

5. Comment #435579 by Steve Zara on November 26, 2009 at 10:13 pm

Theistic religion and evolution can never live side by side.

In a warm pond of chemicals (according to recent research) monomers spontaneously combine at random to form RNA. No god needed.

Some of those countless RNA strands catalyse RNA polymerisation. Digital evolution starts. No god needed.

The RNA strands that catalyse their own formation (and not just random strands) will be selected. No God needed.

Some RNA strands include sequences of RNA that catalyse for other RNA strands that act as catalysts for reactions that provide more energy for reproduction. No God needed.

All this happens within a lipid-rich environment, so the first proto-cell forms. No God needed.

The RNA polymerisation develops a flaw that introduces an equilibration with DNA (which is more stable). No God needed.

DNA is now the stable storage for sequences, along with a system that produces the equivalent RNA strands. No God needed.

The DNA/RNA system mutates to act as a catalyst for amino acid formation (the origin of the ribosome). No God needed.

Proteins form that take over the role of catalysis from RNA. No God needed.

There is no explanatory gap regarding the origin of life and the start of evolution that requires a God. In fact, introducing the idea of a God would have stopped investigation.

Theism is incompatible with the science of life, and especially the science of the origin of life and its development.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

6. Comment #435586 by Enlightenme.. on November 26, 2009 at 10:29 pm

"The purpose of civilization is.. better angels"


What a load of Accomodationist bullcrap Shermer, 'civilisation' is an emergent property that evolved before we could even make pompous assertions about it.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

7. Comment #435587 by SaintStephen on November 26, 2009 at 10:30 pm

Shermer says:

Believers should embrace science, especially evolutionary theory, for what it has done to reveal the magnificence of the divinity in a depth never dreamed by our ancient ancestors.

Which or what divinity is Shermer talking about? And then why does Shermer's hyperlink tie directly into a CNN page with two videos, both with Dawkins' atheistic mug prominently displayed:



I'm confused by Shermer's angle here. Talking about some "divinity" and then telling theists to go listen to Richard Dawkins seems a bit schizophrenic, methinks.

Other Comments by SaintStephen

8. Comment #435588 by Jos Gibbons on November 26, 2009 at 10:31 pm

Most scientists would prefer

Source?

Belief that evolution is a threat to specific religious tenets

It is - for example, the belief that God made the world in 6 days. That's a religious tenet, right?

The fear that evolutionary theory implies we have a fixed human nature///originates from liberals

Really? Liberals are that clueless about evolution meaning change? If liberals don't get it, who does?

The difference of six zeros is meaningless

Not to whoever wrote the exquisitely detailed, therefore clearly not metaphorical genealogies in genesis, nor to the people who think God doesn't use a myriad of riddles when he could just say what he means.

the glory of divine creation cries out for praise regardless of when it happened

Hundreds of millions of years of merciless animal suffering the whole world over makes a pretty big difference here if you ask me.

[evolution has revealed] the magnificence of the divinity in a depth never dreamed by our ancestors

What's with these people thinking lots of time is "deep"? It's not deep, it's lazy. Lots of SPACE is impressive, but lots of time is horrendously excessive in the horrors it causes.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Michael Shermer

We can only hope.

Other Comments by Jos Gibbons

9. Comment #435591 by prolibertas on November 26, 2009 at 10:33 pm

It is easy just to look at the 'what' of evolution and find it compatible with theism. It's a bit harder when you actually look at the 'how' of evolution - mutation and natural selection, or survival of the fittest and culling of the weak - a process that simultaneously kills the design argument, exacerbates the problem of evil, and shows that life suspiciously developed by the one means you'd expect it to if there is no God. If theism and evolution were really compatible, then surely the accomodationists would be confident enough to bring up these points and refute their significance. Why don't they? Why do they avoid the real issues?

Maybe Shermer's game of hide-the-ball with the real issues will get people who are ignorant to accept evolution (so long as they don't look into it too much) but the real 'war' is between reason and unreason. What good is it having people accept evolution, if they remain without reason? The world will still be up shit creek. Instead of all this dishonest accomodationist coddling that ultimately achieves nothing in the war on unreason, we should deploy evolution usefully as a weapon against unreason, while also using it to emphasise the awe and wonder of the natural world to mitigate against having people flock back to religion in fright. At least, that's how I was won over.

Other Comments by prolibertas

10. Comment #435593 by entheogensmurf on November 26, 2009 at 10:35 pm

For religion and evolution to live side by side, religion has to fess up to be the bunk it is. That does not sound like it can live side by side.

Other Comments by entheogensmurf

11. Comment #435596 by Nunbeliever on November 26, 2009 at 10:43 pm

cop-out, cop-out, cop-out...

I can understand the political reasons for trying to persuade christians that the theory of evolution is not incompatible with their cherished beliefs. And yes, I prefer christians who believe in evolution to creationists.

BUT, what bugs me is that intellectual honesty is constantly being sacrificed in order to please the religious. If christians find it necessary to create intellectual "loop holes" so that evolution can be compatible with their religious beliefs. Fine! That is their problem. But, it is just pathetic when renown atheists like Shermer have to take part in this debate for political reasons.

On the other hand, who am I to judge him. I do not even live in USA.

Other Comments by Nunbeliever

12. Comment #435598 by Kiwi on November 26, 2009 at 10:46 pm

Side by side is not overlapping. Is he going for NOMA here ? Beware of accomodationist concessions.

Depends on what is meant by "live" in this context. I suggest it could mean "to know it exists as something humans have put forward as an explanation in the past". But not as a currently competing hypothesis knowing what we now know.

Using this definition, Earthcentrism can live alongside Heliocentrism, but only as historical baggage and as an aid to a view of where we have come from in our appreciation of the universe.

Other Comments by Kiwi

13. Comment #435600 by Enlightenme.. on November 26, 2009 at 10:50 pm

How much accommodation should we make with Lebensraumers in the West bank?

How much accommodation should we make with the Catholic church in Ireland today?

How much accommodation should we make with Albino & child witch hunters in Nigeria?

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

14. Comment #435615 by genetheory on November 26, 2009 at 11:30 pm

There's a real problem for religious people who say that evolution and their belief's are compatible...

Evolution by natural selection has taken many millions of years to arrive at the world as we currently find it. Therefore, the religious need to explain what big G has been doing all of that time. I then refer you to Hitch's eloquent and quite correct description of a Heaven that watches human beings live and die in appauling conditions for the best part of 100,000 years, only intervening within the last 3,000. Could you imagine the public reaction if it were found that Josef Fritzl's neighbour was entirely aware of what was happening in his dark cellar the whole time? How would we all react if the neighbour was found to be actually watching from a secret hiding place while he repeatedly raped his daughter... I suspect that such a person may even be MORE reviled that Fritzl himself, for not intervening or calling the authorities.

If evolution (by natural selection) is correct, by logical extension Yahweh is NOT a god of love. He doesn't even seem to be that caring really... Doesn't this simply compound the problem for the faithful? What kind of god are they worshipping?

Other Comments by genetheory

15. Comment #435629 by NewEnglandBob on November 27, 2009 at 12:02 am

Sorry, Michael Shermer, but this accommodationism is a no-go.

Other Comments by NewEnglandBob

16. Comment #435639 by SyDaemon on November 27, 2009 at 1:04 am

Misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. A significant problem is that most people know so little about the theory...Because evolution is so controversial, public school science teachers typically drop the subject entirely rather than face the discomfort aroused among students and parents.

Isn't it because people understand so little of evolution that you have to teach it to them in the first place?

Other Comments by SyDaemon

17. Comment #435640 by MrPickwick on November 27, 2009 at 1:06 am

How much is that Templeton prize? Mewonders...

Other Comments by MrPickwick

18. Comment #435646 by mmurray on November 27, 2009 at 1:43 am

Therefore, the religious need to explain what big G has been doing all of that time.

God is beyond space and time so you question does not make sense. This is the problem with atheist naturalism it doesn't understand that God is so amazingly wonderful he cannot fit into puny pond slime evolved brains.

Seriously you and I know this is so much rubbish but the religiously deluded will find a cop out every time.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

19. Comment #435648 by NewEnglandBob on November 27, 2009 at 2:02 am

17. Comment #435631 by m d:

Accommodationism is not by the theists, but it is an accommodation of theists by the atheists/agnostics toward theism. Shermer is one of them in my opinion, as is Chris Mooney. Some of them say that the 'New Atheists' strategy of confrontation is incorrect and that there is/can be compatibility between theism and science. Shermer seems to dance around these issues.

Other Comments by NewEnglandBob

20. Comment #435651 by Dave Porter on November 27, 2009 at 2:41 am

"10,000 years ago or 10 billion years ago. The difference of six zeros is meaningless"

I makes a huge difference. How else do we account for all the sedimentary rock layers? Ignoring data is what keeps Americans ignorant. I do not avoid the conflicts when teaching evolution in my Biology classes. I only present the science side, never the mythology one. I tick off a lot of kids and parents, but none of them can prove the science wrong. We have to stick together.

Other Comments by Dave Porter

21. Comment #435652 by Logicel on November 27, 2009 at 3:09 am

Shermer is telling theists to accommodate science. He is even using their language to explain this point.

How stupid/gullible does he thinks theists are? A lot it seems, and it is apparent he wants to keep them stupid and gullible. Shermer probably thinks that in such a frighteningly religious country like America, the best approach is to coddle. Isn't that how America got to be so overbearingly religious in the first place?

Look, Shermer, the coddling has to stop. Speak to theists as they are intelligent adults. And don't tell them the obvious--they are already doing what you are suggesting, that is, the cherry-picking of science.

A change of script is needed here, and you ain't supplying it.

Other Comments by Logicel

22. Comment #435660 by Ascaphus on November 27, 2009 at 4:36 am

While I don't agree at all with the 'side-by-side' part, I think Shermer's analysis of the different objections is perspicuous and useful. We can't mount a valid effort at educating those "opposed" to evolution if we conflate their reasons for objecting.

Matt

Other Comments by Ascaphus

23. Comment #435669 by RUKiddinMe on November 27, 2009 at 6:23 am

Has Michael taken Templeton Foundation money?

Other Comments by RUKiddinMe

24. Comment #435676 by Communist on November 27, 2009 at 8:07 am

Michael Shermer is a right winger who has written a pseudoscientific book called 'The Mind of the Market' in which he discusses the behaviour of apes and sees capitalism. He has also cooperated with the Templeton Foundation. I view him with extreme caution.

In the essey above, he lists six reasons for the resistance to Darwinian evolution. He misses the most important one: That an evolving biosphere leads to theories about an evolving society. Read the stuff coming from islamist creationists, and this fear is obvious.

Fundamentalists rarely rage against scientific theories about electronegativity or aerodynamics. Their targets are theories that imply change over time: Darwinian evolution, the expanding universe and plate tectonics. All these targets of attack have one thing in common: They imply major changes over time. That's why the fundies fear them.

Other Comments by Communist

25. Comment #435678 by Monty_Lovering on November 27, 2009 at 8:22 am

Whilst to many of 'us' a general acceptance that there is probably no god would be the preferred outcome, to hold out for this is very much like 'Waiting for Goddot', or more accurately, God not.

Don't hold your breath...

Just as the ID/Creationist lobby formed the 'Wedge' stratagy, a similar attempt for 'us' to utilise arguments that allow us to insert 'the thin end' into theist's belief structures is more likely to achieve results than ramming 'the thick end' down theist's throats.

Disbelief is not generally a 'Road to Damascus' like conversion or polarisation of worldview. It is a path of many steps. I've been there and done it and seen it happen in others.

So although it lacks the satisfying purity of absolute insistance, 'us' accepting the first step is moving people to a non-literal interpretation of Creation myths is wise and pragmatic.

Once people are there they can see further. And frankly, I do not care if people maintain unprovable beliefs in the devine akin to Deism provided they don't deny facts or assert the same text that leads them to deny facts is the correct and only guide to leading a good life.

Even if people who make that step do not go further, their children will grow up in an environment where they will have the intellectual freedom to follow the path to the logical conclusion many of 'us' have reached.

Other Comments by Monty_Lovering

26. Comment #435680 by John Desclin on November 27, 2009 at 8:39 am

Religion: intentional ignorance to keep beliefs safe; Science and evolution: human need to know.
They cannot live together, except in deluded brains

Other Comments by John Desclin

27. Comment #435682 by Michael Gray on November 27, 2009 at 8:56 am

First was Shermer's sheer insanity on health-care liberalism, (vis: completely ignoring the resounding success of socialised health-care in enlightened Western democracies and insisting that the very failed user-pays system is superior against all the evidence), and now this equally wrong insistence that faitheism is productive for the atheist cause, well: that's it for me.
Shermer has reverted to his former self-confessed madness. The madness of fervently holding as true that which is demonstrably untrue.
What the intercourse has happened to you, Michael?

Other Comments by Michael Gray

28. Comment #435688 by scoobie on November 27, 2009 at 9:17 am

Perhaps Bill Maher should write him an open letter pointing out the error of his ways?

Other Comments by scoobie

29. Comment #435690 by CyBearNetic on November 27, 2009 at 9:27 am

I can understand the carrying of belief above or along side science fact. However till there is any proven evidence of science mending into religion or vice versa it should remain segregated. Science is science and religion of all sorts is religion. Theory's and ideas are great and I can admire there creativity and imagination but thats where it should stand. Unlike religion, science finds the right solutions not the quickest solutions so that it makes people feel comfortable.

Other Comments by CyBearNetic

30. Comment #435691 by John Locke on November 27, 2009 at 9:28 am

i dont think the article is terrible (maybe im feeling nice cos its nearly the weekend)

the first 2/3 at least is a pretty good analysis.

where he falls short is that he doesnt analyse religion itself. he he seems to be taking a typically anglican stance on evolution, much like many clergymen here in the UK that richard speaks highly of. to be fair it is hard to argue against people who have chosen this stance, as it is a harmless and passive one. naturally to believe in evolution and god asks even more questions (IMO) particularly about the nature of god, but you cant really criticise someone for believing this as its a viewpoint with little conflict with regards to things that matter. if he chooses to believe in god, so be it, he's got no problem with real, important issues.

this is not objectionable in itself so i think people are being a bit harsh. especially since although a long shot, i think this is a more plausible ruse to win round the religious to at least recognising evolution and believing in it. one step at a time.

maybe he is more atheistic than the article suggests - hence the links to richard's videos?

Other Comments by John Locke

31. Comment #435692 by Bonzai on November 27, 2009 at 9:29 am

The whole situation is absurd.

Imagine math teachers having to spin some tall tale to explain to students and parents who belong to some integer cult that fractions are actually compatible with their religious belief, they just have to relax their dogmas a little.

Now imagine mathematicians actually having brain storming sessions to come up with sales pitch for fractions, like maybe they are not as bad as irrational numbers.

This is rather pathetic and embarrassing, but what is more pathetic is that this kind of spineless, unconvincing and insincere appeasement to religion may actually be necessary in order to get the idiots to even listen. We live in a pathetic world.

What do you do if you are a teacher and some fundamentalist students tell you evolution is wrong because they believe in the Bible or the Koran?

My impulse would be to fail them all and kick them out of the class. I wouldn't stoop down to 'meet them half way' in stupidity. That would be a drastic compromise of intellectual integrity.

I would prefer the direct confrontational approach. If I have my way I would make biology with heavy emphasis on evolution a mandatory credit for highschool graduation. If you fail you don't get the diploma, end of story. Fuck the fundie students and their parents.

But then I am not a very practical person, I am also bad in politics.

Other Comments by Bonzai

32. Comment #435693 by keddaw on November 27, 2009 at 9:31 am

From the comments:

Robotron:
You can watch your parents put your gifts under the tree and still believe in Santa if you want to. But, um, why would you?

You Santa-deniers have such a narrow view of Santa. Santa, by His acts and words, inspires your parents to put gifts under your tree, he works through people who have an open mind and are willing to accept Santa into their hearts.

You cannot be generous without Santa. Giving has no meaning if Santa doesn't exist. I wouldn't want to live in a world without Santa in it.

Other Comments by keddaw

33. Comment #435699 by Steve Zara on November 27, 2009 at 10:09 am

Comment #435656 by m d

Science can't finally decide if God exists or not, but it can show that God doesn't exist beyond any doubt, and it has already done that.

Theism is based on the idea that our observations of the world should lead us to the conclusion that a creator intervenes. That creator was necessary for the origin and maintenance of the world and for the laws by which the world operates. That creator also revealed his existence through the granting of favours, by listening to and answering prayers, and through miracles.

None of that now stands up to scientific investigation. We have looked across billions of years of space and time and we see a reality that looks free of design.

It is true that science can't prove absence. God might be hiding in some distant galaxy. But that isn't the God of theism that anyone claims exists. To use this rather childish defense against science a theist must have to claim that they have seen evidence from that distant galaxy. Otherwise we end up with some absurd "coincidental theism" in which a belief that was based on false evidence happens by pure chance to be right. That is even less likely than the existence of the deity in the first place.

So, the fact that a theist has to put forward the argument that science can't disprove God is itself good evidence for atheism.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

34. Comment #435708 by mirandaceleste on November 27, 2009 at 10:40 am

Comment #435669 by RUKiddinMe:

Has Michael taken Templeton Foundation money?

Yes, unfortunately: http://origins.skeptic.com/index.php

a conference at Caltech, presented by the Skeptics Society, and cosponsored by the Templeton Foundation,
October 3–4, 2008

Other Comments by mirandaceleste

35. Comment #435725 by BillySands on November 27, 2009 at 11:44 am

I don't think he gets the problem that fundies require that the bible is literally true. Anything that contradicts that must be rejected. This is certainly the offical line with AIG.

If religion has to accomodate scientific facts, then it stops becoming fixed and true in the minds of some believers. Others seem happy enough to tailor a belief system around the facts that bears no resemblence to their holy books.

I personally dont see the point of accomodating theists. The evidence for evolution is there regardless of what their books say. If they dont like it, they can fuck off! I would rather the battle be won on facts rather than trying to convince believers that their religion is not incompatible with evolution.

Other Comments by BillySands

36. Comment #435762 by latsot on November 27, 2009 at 12:55 pm

I don't think Shermer strictly intends an accomodationist stance here. I think it's his polite way of saying saying that the facts are what they are and if you want to go ahead and believe in god, that's up to you, but it had better be a version of god that doesn't dispute the facts of evolution. Which would be a very weak version of god indeed, as many here have pointed out.

The problem with the article as I see it is Shermer's assertions of how theists "should" behave, which ignores the fact that the majority do not, in fact, behave like that.

Other Comments by latsot

37. Comment #435778 by latsot on November 27, 2009 at 1:37 pm

Dave Porter:

I makes a huge difference. How else do we account for all the sedimentary rock layers?

I think Shermer is saying it doesn't have to make a difference to whether or not a believer thinks some kind of god is ultimately responsible. We've all heard the 'argument' that god burried fossils to tease us and created light already en route from distant stars. Many religious people seem to tie themselves in knots like that.

Perhaps Shermer is targetting the fence-sitters who are more inclined to the theistic side. People who come up with (admittedly silly) arguments like this are obviously more introspective than the fundies and more prepared to listen. Perhaps Shermer is putting an argument that undermines the idea of god in some people's minds.

If they can feel good about it as they are letting go of god, it might make things easier for them.

Having said that, I find Shermer's approach to be a lot more polite than mine and a lot more polite than religion deserves. He is being nicer than I would be, but I don't see that as either a problem or a weakness. I think the problem with accomodationism isn't that it is pandering to the religious (although that annoys me), it is that the accomodationists want to tell *everyone* what to say and do, no matter which side they are on. They are the ones criticising us for being strident. Shermer isn't doing that at all.

I think we need some Shermers, some PZ Myres and pretty much everything in between.

Other Comments by latsot

38. Comment #435787 by Steve Zara on November 27, 2009 at 1:59 pm

Comment #435762 by latsot

I don't think Shermer strictly intends an accomodationist stance here.

From the article:

"the glory of divine creation cries out for praise regardless of when it happened."

"The grandeur of God's works commands awe regardless of what processes He used."

"The purpose of civilization is to help us rise above our hearts of darkness and to accentuate the better angels of our nature."

I don't see how there can be any doubt that this is an accommodationist article.

I have a lot of respect for Shermer. I think he is important in the battle against religion and unreason. But I think his approach here is mistaken. For one thing, it will backfire, as religious people become more educated about science and some realise that science and religion are not compatible. The broken promise of accommodation will tarnish the reputation of rationalists who propose it, I think.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

39. Comment #435799 by latsot on November 27, 2009 at 2:53 pm

Steve Zara:

I don't see how there can be any doubt that this is an accommodationist article.

Oh come off it, Steve. Shermer is laying out a stance that believers might take in order for *them* to accommodate evolution (i.e. by throwing out a bunch of dogma). Possibly, his hope is that it will make it easier for some people to gradually let go of their faith. It's a big leap to take all in one go for some people.

The accomodationist stance is more about how we should all play nicely with believers in order to better convince them, or more usually that what is perceived by the religious as sarcasm and hostility (when it hardly ever is) doesn't help, so we should be *extra* careful to avoid 'offending' the religious.

I don't see why it is "clear" that Shermer is advocating such a position at all.

I don't accept the accomodationist stance. I think confrontation is important and that kowtowing to the claims of 'offence' by the religious is abhorrent. That doesn't mean that we can't play nicely with the religious from time to time or that we shouldn't try to understand things from their point of view or sometimes phrase arguments in ways that might make more sense to them. Diffusing confrontation can also be a useful tool: I just don't accept that it's the one we should use by default or because people claim to be offended if we do anything else.

Shermer may or may not reach a few fence-sitters with this approach, I've no idea. But if an accomodationist is someone who sometimes tries to talk to people in terms they are more likely to take on board, then I have no problem with accomodationists in principle, even though I have my doubts at how effective the message will be.

On the other hand, if Shermer were to write that everyone's positions should be more like his and that there should be one united voice for atheism, evolution, science, whatever, then I would call him an accomodationist and dismiss him.

Other Comments by latsot

40. Comment #435805 by root2squared on November 27, 2009 at 3:16 pm

Doh. Accomodationism is a lot more profitable!

Other Comments by root2squared

41. Comment #435808 by Steve Zara on November 27, 2009 at 3:28 pm

Comment #435799 by latsot

The accomodationist stance is more about how we should all play nicely with believers in order to better convince them, or more usually that what is perceived by the religious as sarcasm and hostility (when it hardly ever is) doesn't help, so we should be *extra* careful to avoid 'offending' the religious.

That's not what I understand as accommodationism. I understand it to mean that religion and science can rationally co-exist as alternate ways of looking at the world, and that this idea should be promoted.

I have never heard it used as meaning being nice to religious people.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

42. Comment #435813 by Sonic on November 27, 2009 at 3:51 pm

I’m glad Shermer compiled his list of six reasons that make people resistant to evolution; that was food for thought. But then he’s flat wrong to say all the fears are baseless, and I’ll start with Shermer’s reason number two:

2. Belief that evolution is a threat to specific religious tenets. Many people attempt to use science to prove certain religious tenets, but when they do not appear to fit, the science is rejected. For example, the attempt to prove that the Genesis creation story is accurately reflected in the geological fossil record has led many creationists to conclude that the Earth was created within the past 10,000 years, which is in sharp contrast to the geological evidence for a 4.6 billion-year-old Earth.

For Biblical literalists, evolution directly contradicts their belief that the Bible is a literal historical document. So Shermer’s claim is blatantly untrue, and that baffles me completely. Is he lying to himself about this? I can’t see what payoff he gets for getting this point so blatantly incorrect.

Of course, for Biblical literalists, Biblical inconsistencies also contradict their tenet that the Bible is a literal historical document -- and that just goes to show you can’t reason with these people, because they can’t reason with themselves. And this brings me to Shermer’s reason number one:

1. The Warfare Model of Science and Religion. The belief that there is a war between science and religion where one is right and the other wrong, and that one must choose one over the other.

Did Shermer write “warfare model” to mean aggressive behavior on the side of science? Is Shermer trying to change some behavior on the side of science? I’m sorry Shermer, but this is reality: Biblical literalists will continue their war on science, no matter what you do. Now read this explicit denial of science and deal with it!

Article XII.

WE AFFIRM that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.

WE DENY that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

Compare Article XII. to Shermer’s 1. and 2. -- Shermer plainly denies this evidence that’s easily available to him on the subject. And what course of action can Shermer recommend? To tell Biblical literalists, “Just don’t be Biblical literalists,” and then the problem is solved? He’s pissing up a downspout.

I’m sorry, I don’t know Shermer’s work outside of this essay, but here he impresses me as a fundamentalist in the sense he holds an ideological position dogmatically, and I mean dogmatically in the sense he seems immune to evidence.

Other Comments by Sonic

43. Comment #435818 by godsbelow on November 27, 2009 at 4:15 pm

Why do we care what the majority of people in the USA believe about the origins of life? So what if the superstitious believe that gods created a man and a woman in Eden some time in the last 10000 years?

Don't get me wrong - I don't want to see creationism taught in schools, I don't want 'ID' given equal time in class. It's important to me that the theory of evolution by natural selection be taught in schools, because it's science, and schools should provide a solid grounding in science for all students.

But whether or not those students actually accept the overwhelming probability of Darwinian evolution really doesn't matter in my view. I suspect that the majority of those 45 per cent of Americans would still be creationists, no matter how much time the schools devoted to teaching evolution. If they choose myth over science, that's their problem. Let them dwell in willful ignorance of the truth, who cares? So long as they are offered the opportunity to escape their ignorance, science will have done its part.

Can't force dumbasses to stop being dumbasses.

Other Comments by godsbelow

44. Comment #435829 by root2squared on November 27, 2009 at 4:48 pm

I would be fired very quickly if I was a science teacher.

My exam would look like this.

1) The only current valid explanation for life on earth is
a. Evolution by natural selection.
b. Jesus
c. Allah
d. Intelligent Design.

2) Apes and humans
a. Have nothing in common
b. Were both created by god.
c. Share a common ancestor.
d. Differ in that humans have souls.

3) The best method for understanding reality is
a. Revelation
b. Science
c. The secret
d. Feelings

If you get one wrong, you get an F and repeat the course.

Other Comments by root2squared

45. Comment #435832 by chewedbarber on November 27, 2009 at 5:07 pm

What else can the religious accept without abandoning their faith? I think we could compile an impressive list of very large elephants, many of whom the religious already comfortably live with--like a loving God but a cruel world. But is that the right thing to do? Should skeptics encourage poor reasoning and even cognitive dissonance?

How exactly is evolution compatible with theism? In particular, how is it compatible with the theism of the Americans Shermer is supposedly reaching out to?

If you have any doubt about the incompatibility of not just evolution and this theism, but the scientific method and this theism, then just consider how utterly unpalatable the sophisticated theology of those who purport to serve Jesus and science is, to those American church goers who reject evolution. Unless you think they simply haven't heard of or understood that newfangled theism you can assume they found it lacking, unable to support their needs. Is that surprising? A sophisticated theology is more shadow than substance.

While those Americans might be so gullible as to accept that Noah filled the ark and sailed above Mt. Ararat, are they also so dense as to miss that if they indeed evolved, 1. They are not set apart from creation except by their evolutionary path, and 2. God's judgment seems trite and arbitrary given what God has allowed in our evolutionary history; and that is only a small part of the avalanche brought by evolution onto this theism, a theism which is consumed by the importance of humanity, Americans in particular, and God’s judgment.

Other Comments by chewedbarber

46. Comment #435855 by Dave Porter on November 27, 2009 at 7:38 pm

"I would be fired very quickly if I was a science teacher".

I have a question on the end of my Chapter 1 Quiz:
Which of these scientific theories have been proven correct? I have listed theory of gravity, evolution, atomic theory, and the like. The correct answer I take is "all of them", and I do count off for students that only pick and choose what they want to "accept". I have been teaching for 14 years, and they can fire me if they want to. Trouble is, who are they going to hire next, a competent replacement or a religious nut? When schools are already failing to make "Adequate Yearly Progress" they only hurt themselves by hiring more religinuts.

If we don't put our foot down to get reality into students' heads, they will continue to have more ignorant kids and the cycle repeats. This is what has been allowed to occur, and its time to stop this negative cycle.

Other Comments by Dave Porter

47. Comment #435873 by epeeist on November 27, 2009 at 9:35 pm

Comment #435855 by Dave Porter:

Which of these scientific theories have been proven correct? I have listed theory of gravity, evolution, atomic theory, and the like. The correct answer I take is "all of them"

No, in that they are theories they could all be disproved tomorrow by the appropriate experiment, though this is unlikely.

What this particular set of theories have is a high degree of verisimilitude have been tested many times and in many different ways. But this doesn't mean that they are true, and even if they were it would be impossible for us to know this.

Other Comments by epeeist

48. Comment #435875 by mirandaceleste on November 27, 2009 at 9:45 pm

Ugh. Shermer has written an article at The Huffington Post, called "Theism v. Atheism: I'm a Realist, not an "Accommodationist"

I've written about it here. In a nutshell: no, Shermer, you indeed are an accommodationist.

Other Comments by mirandaceleste

49. Comment #435880 by Steve Zara on November 27, 2009 at 9:58 pm

Comment #435875 by mirandaceleste

Very good blog entry (as usual) Miranda. I particularly like the last phrase:

Accommodationism gives up the “battle” before it has even begun.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

50. Comment #435884 by robotaholic on November 27, 2009 at 10:13 pm

I was disappointed in this article. The last few paragraphs sounded like he was preaching.- meh

I like Dawkin's opinion better: "Science is true and if you don't like it you can fuck off."

Other Comments by robotaholic