Our own RBH called out by PZ Myers!

[Worldtraveller]

I figured I'd get some internet drama goin' here... *fans the flames*

Not really, I would like to see a dicsussion of others' thoughts on the topic though.

RBH's post here (http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/04/generals-who-do.html).

PZ Myers' blog post here (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/04/foot_soldiers_who_lack_vision.php).

I have to say on this topic, as another one of the proverbial foot soldiers in this battle, that I tend to agree with PZ's approach more, but as much as RBH rails against Coyne's strawman (and rightly so), I think he then goes on in his closing statements to build a strawman of his own that, admittedly, he knocks the stuffing out of.

Coyne's strawman is clearly laid out in the PT article, and dealt with there.

Here is RBH's strawman:
I did a 3-Sunday series of talks on religion, evolution, and morality in a local Protestant church recently. Had I walked in there and opened with “OK, folks, in order to understand and accept evolution as I’ll present it today, you have to deconvert” I’d have lost my (overflow) audience in the first five minutes. That would have robbed me of the opportunity to introduce religious people to the power and breadth of the theory and to describe the misconceptions that the fundamentalist Christians have been feeding children and adults in my community. And that’s a losing strategy, Jerry
Very few of the rabid, frothing at the mouth atheists would argue that that is a good way to start a talk that might include a few believers. As such, it's just a much of a strawman as Coyne's position that NCSE is coddling or pro-religion.

As PZ says, he doesn't mention religion in his classes, he teaches science. His personal thoughts on religion no more belong in a science class than the NCSE's more accomodationist position does. It should not be a topic in the classroom at all.

Also, I have to say that much of the Dawkins, PZ, Coyne, et. al.'s statments come as a reaction to incursions in science by religious winguttery. As such, IMO, it's completely justifiable as a reaction, regardless of its political expediency.

I'm just as much (if not as well known or prolific) of a foot soldier in this battle as RBH, and PZ, and others. I can see the benefits of both approaches. I tend to not bring religion into it, but when the religious bring their beliefs into science, I am more than happy to shed the light of reason and logic and bring ridicule in response to ridicule. I refuse to let them write the rules and then try to play nice while they smear atheists and scientists with thier lies, then whine when some of us bite back.

[Notta]

Also, I have to say that much of the Dawkins, PZ, Coyne, et. al.'s statments come as a reaction to incursions in science by religious winguttery. As such, IMO, it's completely justifiable as a reaction, regardless of its political expediency.

I'm just as much (if not as well known or prolific) of a foot soldier in this battle as RBH, and PZ, and others. I can see the benefits of both approaches. I tend to not bring religion into it, but when the religious bring their beliefs into science, I am more than happy to shed the light of reason and logic and bring ridicule in response to ridicule. I refuse to let them write the rules and then try to play nice while they smear atheists and scientists with thier lies, then whine when some of us bite back.
You can't tell religious people they have to lose their faith in order to accept evolution. That's a completely false dichotomy. But if you tell them they'll have to accept Genesis as a fable or allegory, THEN you run into huge issues, but that's a true statement.

And when they continue to spout such falsehoods as "oil made from turkey guts is chemically indistinct from oil made millions of years ago" and claim it supports a young earth, or that the craters on the moon were made when the earth exploded as the "fountains of the deep" opened up, well, mockery and ridicule seem like the best response. It's like discussing how science proves how Santa can reach every household over the course of several hours. There's no way you can talk about that belief politely.

[Alethias]

What PZ and others don't bring into the discussion is the absolute, paralyzing, gut-wrenching fear and paranoia that what they say/teach brings into the hearts and minds of religious fundamentalists. You're leading their kids astray and painting a rosy path that takes them straight to the gates of hell, after all. I'm not joking; It's a literally horrifying notion from the perspective of a religious conservative.

Battles against that are not won by espousing rabid frothing at the mouth no-compromise atheism. It just more deeply entrenches them and makes them feel justified in their hatred and fear and loathing. Incremental steps feels o-so-much like evil compromise, but it is the only chance at winning this battle.

PZ is well-spoken, and I love Jerry Coyne, but RBH wins the day on this one.

[Hex]

As PZ says, he doesn't mention religion in his classes, he teaches science. His personal thoughts on religion no more belong in a science class than the NCSE's more accomodationist position does. It should not be a topic in the classroom at all.

Also, I have to say that much of the Dawkins, PZ, Coyne, et. al.'s statments come as a reaction to incursions in science by religious winguttery. As such, IMO, it's completely justifiable as a reaction, regardless of its political expediency.

I'm just as much (if not as well known or prolific) of a foot soldier in this battle as RBH, and PZ, and others. I can see the benefits of both approaches. I tend to not bring religion into it, but when the religious bring their beliefs into science, I am more than happy to shed the light of reason and logic and bring ridicule in response to ridicule. I refuse to let them write the rules and then try to play nice while they smear atheists and scientists with thier lies, then whine when some of us bite back.

Actually, I think an important point is missed in here. The critical thing is that neither side (RBH or Dawkins, PZ, Coyne, et. al.) is advocating allowing religion in science. Science is science and religion is something that stays outside - I think everyone in this discussion would agree.

But, in trying to get the evolutionary theory (or any other scientific information) across to people who have strong religious beliefs - especially those where they've been taught by (religious) people they trust, without any substantiating information, that evolutionary theory contradicts their religion and is therefore wrong - coming in with a more 'aggressive' atheistic stance is only going to build resistance to whatever the message is.

With that out of the way, I’ll first describe one plain fact: people exist who are both religious (Christian) believers and competent, even distinguished, scientists, in the sense of actually doing standard science in a context like a secular university or industrial laboratory and publishing in the peer reviewed scientific literature. Those people (excluding the presuppositionalists of the AIG, ICR, and Disco ‘Tute sort) do not in their scientific work invoke supernatural entities as causal or explanatory variables. If one reads their scientific papers one finds that they address genuine scientific issues without reference to angels, demons, gods, or intelligent designers. Their papers in Nature and Science and Cell are indistinguishable from the papers of scientists who are not religious believers. So it follows that individual scientists can make some sort of accommodation with their religious beliefs that does not impact their science.

Here we can see this disconnect. It is possible to be a scientist and have religious beliefs. It becomes an issue when people bring their religious beliefs into the scientific realm as explanation ("goddidit") or try to set up a premise that especially supports their beliefs (ID).

Since, by definition, the supernatural is beyond/above/outside the natural world, and science is predicated in the phenomena we can observe/measure in the natural world, the two are mutually exclusive in many, many ways.

Granted, trying to reconcile a literal interpretation of the Genesis myths with what we know scientifically of the creation of the world and life itself, yeah, you have to set the religious account aside, or at least revise it to being a pretty story that accounts, in a general (and non-linear) way in order for the scientific details to match with the story.

The idea that RBH might be making his audience less hostile to his message by showing that he understands where they might be coming from, and that they needn't lose faith is extremely important for the acceptance of the message.

And, IMHO, getting that message across is super important. In teaching my courses on (human/primate especially) evolution, I am sometimes amazed by how resistant to the idea people can be, based solely on presuppositions, and then how simple the message can be made, and further, how easily acceptable it can be to those same people once you get past whatever their resistance is based on.

I don't know, and maybe I'm messed up on this, but I think that RBH's argument is the way to go, especially in the 'Bible Belt' and other such places. If the Religion vs. Evolution fights could be made less volatile, then we'd probably have a better level of scientific comprehension in this (and other?) countries, and that would probably do more for the atheistic movement in the next generations ... :dunno:

[VoxRat]

I don't know...
I like both RBH and PZ.
I think there's a certain amount of talking past each other going on here.

I think this little essay (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/bart_klink/evolution.html) is pertinent to the question. If you're an atheist, that is. No way I would go into a bunch of church people trying, sincerely, to come to grips with evolution, and recommend that, even though I think it's pretty much spot on.

[Alethias]

I like them both too. I'm an Avid reader of PZ. I'm also a former fundamentalist minister, and can readily imagine how I would have reacted to his well-phrased, incendiary style back in the day. I think that RBH makes a better diplomat I guess. PZ is far from a diplomat. Both are probably needed for the battle.

[BigEvil]

From what I have read, the argument mostly centers around the approach by NSCE on this matter. RBH and others support the current approach and PZ and others want it modified.

The part in question is where the NSCE states that evolution is compatable with religion.

PZ and others want it removed.


The simplified argument for the status quo:

Its obviously true. Ken Miller and Francis Collins are the standard evidence of this. Millions of theists are religious and accept evolutionary theory.

It makes the acceptance of evolutionary theory less threatening. Many theists are predisposed to believe that evolution = atheism, and because of that, they reject evolutionary theory prior to learning it. Once that dispostition is removed, it is much easier to teach evolution.


The simplified argument for the removal:

It's obviously misleading. While some forms of theism are compatible with evolution, there are many that are not. Many theists don't just believe in a god, they believe in a specific god that does specific things and has created a specific history. Evolution is not compatible in any way with a creator god that created the universe in seven days, five thousand years ago.

The NSCE should not make any comment about religion. As Jerry Coyne says, "We should just say that evolution is true." Its not NSCE's place to tell the public how they should interpet their bibles or to make suggestions on how to interpet their bibles, or to give various options of interpetations. NSCE is a science organization and should stick to the science, let the religious seek religious counseling for advice on biblical interpetation.


While I respect both sides, my own personal opinion is with the Myers/Coyne group.

[SteveF]

I'm inclined towards RBH's POV. I think the notion that PZ is somehow playing the long game, in comparison to the "foot soldiers" to be somewhat strange. It seems to have escaped him that the other side is wanting to play the long game also and if you provide them with short term gain, then they are much more likely to win over the long term.

It strikes me that the simple fact of the matter is that, on the ground, an atheist agenda will lead to the teaching of creationism in schools. I simply can't countenance that. I'm interested in the practicalities of the matter.

[Worldtraveller]

PZ is well-spoken, and I love Jerry Coyne, but RBH wins the day on this one.
And I think this highlights the problem. There really isn't a winner in this kind of situation.

[Sodong]

As PZ says, he doesn't mention religion in his classes, he teaches science. His personal thoughts on religion no more belong in a science class than the NCSE's more accomodationist position does. It should not be a topic in the classroom at all.

Also, I have to say that much of the Dawkins, PZ, Coyne, et. al.'s statments come as a reaction to incursions in science by religious winguttery. As such, IMO, it's completely justifiable as a reaction, regardless of its political expediency.

I'm just as much (if not as well known or prolific) of a foot soldier in this battle as RBH, and PZ, and others. I can see the benefits of both approaches. I tend to not bring religion into it, but when the religious bring their beliefs into science, I am more than happy to shed the light of reason and logic and bring ridicule in response to ridicule. I refuse to let them write the rules and then try to play nice while they smear atheists and scientists with thier lies, then whine when some of us bite back.

Actually, I think an important point is missed in here. The critical thing is that neither side (RBH or Dawkins, PZ, Coyne, et. al.) is advocating allowing religion in science. Science is science and religion is something that stays outside - I think everyone in this discussion would agree.

But, in trying to get the evolutionary theory (or any other scientific information) across to people who have strong religious beliefs - especially those where they've been taught by (religious) people they trust, without any substantiating information, that evolutionary theory contradicts their religion and is therefore wrong - coming in with a more 'aggressive' atheistic stance is only going to build resistance to whatever the message is.

With that out of the way, I’ll first describe one plain fact: people exist who are both religious (Christian) believers and competent, even distinguished, scientists, in the sense of actually doing standard science in a context like a secular university or industrial laboratory and publishing in the peer reviewed scientific literature. Those people (excluding the presuppositionalists of the AIG, ICR, and Disco ‘Tute sort) do not in their scientific work invoke supernatural entities as causal or explanatory variables. If one reads their scientific papers one finds that they address genuine scientific issues without reference to angels, demons, gods, or intelligent designers. Their papers in Nature and Science and Cell are indistinguishable from the papers of scientists who are not religious believers. So it follows that individual scientists can make some sort of accommodation with their religious beliefs that does not impact their science.

Here we can see this disconnect. It is possible to be a scientist and have religious beliefs. It becomes an issue when people bring their religious beliefs into the scientific realm as explanation ("goddidit") or try to set up a premise that especially supports their beliefs (ID).

Since, by definition, the supernatural is beyond/above/outside the natural world, and science is predicated in the phenomena we can observe/measure in the natural world, the two are mutually exclusive in many, many ways.

Granted, trying to reconcile a literal interpretation of the Genesis myths with what we know scientifically of the creation of the world and life itself, yeah, you have to set the religious account aside, or at least revise it to being a pretty story that accounts, in a general (and non-linear) way in order for the scientific details to match with the story.

The idea that RBH might be making his audience less hostile to his message by showing that he understands where they might be coming from, and that they needn't lose faith is extremely important for the acceptance of the message.

And, IMHO, getting that message across is super important. In teaching my courses on (human/primate especially) evolution, I am sometimes amazed by how resistant to the idea people can be, based solely on presuppositions, and then how simple the message can be made, and further, how easily acceptable it can be to those same people once you get past whatever their resistance is based on.

I don't know, and maybe I'm messed up on this, but I think that RBH's argument is the way to go, especially in the 'Bible Belt' and other such places. If the Religion vs. Evolution fights could be made less volatile, then we'd probably have a better level of scientific comprehension in this (and other?) countries, and that would probably do more for the atheistic movement in the next generations ... :dunno:

^^This. RBH must have been feeling especially cantankerous that day :)

[Jobar]

Looks like a rehash of 'Non-overlapping magisteria'.

Any time science is done, it has to connect to the physical world, at least potentially.

But religion is *not* about the physical world- or so most believers would say.

We know that trying to talk about non-physical entities is always incoherent, because there is no way for us to come to agreements concerning things we can't somehow sense. So this means that religion is ultimately incoherent (and divergent, since no two commentators on it have any way to demonstrate who's right and who's wrong concerning their beliefs about things supernatural.)

NOM is true; it's just not the complete truth. For those who don't consider the matter deeply, it appears to be a paradigm which allows one to believe in both scientific truths, and in religious ones. And in the world we all live in, where believers are a considerable majority, I think it's acceptable to remain diplomatically silent about the deeper implications of NOM. IOW, I side with RBH in this.

[David M]

The NSCE should not make any comment about religion. As Jerry Coyne says, "We should just say that evolution is true." Its not NSCE's place to tell the public how they should interpet their bibles or to make suggestions on how to interpet their bibles, or to give various options of interpetations. NSCE is a science organization and should stick to the science, let the religious seek religious counseling for advice on biblical interpetation.

Um... No. NCSE is not a "science organisation", when it comes to countering creationism its a advocacy group that supports the principle of good science and education, as part of its mission to promote good education it seeks to sway public and political opinion, that takes it out of the purely scientific arena where telling the public how to interpret their bibles is a non-issue to a general arena where (in the US particularly) it is a fundamental issue that frames the discussion they are involved in.

They do not advocate teaching that science and religion are compatible in science class only that such a thing is true in public debates about science, this is an entirely valid approach as that issue is very important in the public debate about science education.

[Oolon Colluphid]

The problem is simply that evolution and Christianity are, in fact, utterly incompatible. Wheeling out people who can perform doublethink does not make that incompatibility go away; it proves the existence of doublethink, not the possibility of compatibility.

Utterly incompatible? Yes indeedy. Leaving aside literalist readings of the Bible, which several sciences show to be false; leaving aside the problem with NOMA: that real, on-the-ground believers can't wait to tramp all over science's turf and that genuine NOMA accepters preach a message that is every bit as "disconnected from – indeed, sometimes antithetical to – the reality on the ground" as RBH charges Coyne, Dawkins et al of doing...

... the simple fact of evolution is Adam and Eve did not exist. Therefore there was no Fall, and therefore no need for Christ to die. Dawkins nailed it, as usual:
In any case (one can't help wondering), who was God trying
to impress? Presumably himself - judge and jury as well as
execution victim. To cap it all, Adam, the supposed perpetrator of the original sin, never existed in the first place: an awkward fact - excusably unknown to Paul but presumably known to an omniscient God (and Jesus, if you believe he was God?) - which fundamentally undermines the premise of the whole tortuously nasty theory [of atonement]. Oh, but of course, the story of Adam and Eve was only ever symbolic, wasn't it? Symbolic? So, in order to impress himself, Jesus had himself tortured and executed, in vicarious punishment for a symbolic sin committed by a non-existent individual? As I said, barking mad, as well as viciously unpleasant.
That one, simple fact -- that humans evolved -- at a stroke removes everything from Christianity bar the odd 'turn the other cheek'.

So, the only question is, in order to get the message across, do you downplay or ignore these problems, use soft-soap tactics and sugar-coat the pill? Or do you tackle the issue head on, and simply preface what you say with "I'm sorry, you're not going to like this, but it's how it is"? (I much prefer the latter, but I see the sense of the former despite how strongly its disingenuousness rankles.)

I think the answer is: it depends who you're talking to. For school boards etc, you'll get nowhere by putting people's backs up; you don't persuade people by offending them (no matter how idiotic taking offence might in fact be). For the more hard-faithheaded, a frontal assault may be the only way to get through (if anything can, remembering the adage that you cannot reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into).

We need the Dawkinses, Coynes and PZs to marshall and enthuse the troops. We need the RBHs and NASs to turn it into practice. I think it's clear from our responses that both 'sides' are right, it just depends what the question is.

[Ray Moscow]

As an equal opportunity ranter, I am offended by the accuracy of SteveC's comment on page 1 (http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/04/generals-who-do.html#comment-panels) in response to RBH's article.

[VoxRat]

The problem is simply that evolution and Christianity are, in fact, utterly incompatible. Wheeling out people who can perform doublethink does not make that incompatibility go away; it proves the existence of doublethink, not the possibility of compatibility.

Utterly incompatible? Yes indeedy. Leaving aside literalist readings of the Bible, which several sciences show to be false; leaving aside the problem with NOMA: that real, on-the-ground believers can't wait to tramp all over science's turf and that genuine NOMA accepters preach a message that is every bit as "disconnected from – indeed, sometimes antithetical to – the reality on the ground" as RBH charges Coyne, Dawkins et al of doing... Well, that's the way I, personally, see it, too. I've never seen a formulation of Christianity that is compatible with known scientific facts. But then, I've never seen two people agree on what Christianity even is. So I suppose if it's all a big metaphor - for something or other - it can be compatible with anything.

Bottom line: stick to the science. The fact, though, is that there is a lot of faith-head tramping on scientific turf, and sometimes they need to be called on it.

[DMB]

PZ's rant appeared to me to be froth. As a determined atheist it is easy to get impatient about religion and want to do everything possible to hasten its demise. But I can't see that that ought to be the job of the NSCE.

RBH is right on the essential fact that religious believers can do good science, so why should this not be said?

The interesting question to me is why that is true.

Of all the various human modes of thought, one can argue that science has the closest connection to rationality, although none can accurately be described as 100% rational. So as a first approximation, we can argue that when people are doing decent science, they are being as rational as possible. But I would then have to ask, does their rationality while doing science automatically carry through into other areas of their life? And I would take leave to doubt that it does.

We like to think of ourselves as rational beings, but IMO rationality is an aspiration, not something fully achieved. I would say that all of us run our lives with quite large pockets of irrationality in place and would hardly be recognisably human if we didn't. If you accept that there is no great divide between us and chimps, then this applies in the case of rationality too.

As atheists we may point at what to us appears the obvious irrationality of theists in clinging to their "six impossible things before breakfast", But we all have our own weaknesses and hangups that we are reluctant to examine.

The fact is that humans have an ability to believe simultaneously incompatible things. I think we should accept that and only worry about the consequences of different beliefs. Some forms of organised religious are very dangerous when they impact on the rights of non-believers. If that means attempts to teach nonsense in schools, then that should be fought with every available weapon and every available ally.

[SteveF]

So, the only question is, in order to get the message across, do you downplay or ignore these problems, use soft-soap tactics and sugar-coat the pill? Or do you tackle the issue head on, and simply preface what you say with "I'm sorry, you're not going to like this, but it's how it is"? (I much prefer the latter, but I see the sense of the former despite how strongly its disingenuousness rankles.)

I don't know if evolution and faith are compatible. I really don't care. However, it's a simple reality that many believers and many fine scientists think that they are. Pointing this out, for tactical gain in the fight for good science education, is not disingenuous.

Moreover, for those scientists who do reconcile evolution with faith, the argument that this is contradictory seems to be somewhat irrelevant. They do good science, their faith doesn't seem to affect this. So who cares.

We need the Dawkinses, Coynes and PZs to marshall and enthuse the troops. We need the RBHs and NASs to turn it into practice. I think it's clear from our responses that both 'sides' are right, it just depends what the question is.

Which troops are Dawkins et al marshalling and to what end? If we are purely talking about the troops in the fight for science education (and not a futher atheist agenda), then you could equally include Ken Miller alongside Dawkins and PZ. He does just as much to enthuse me and many others.

Furthermore, I somewhat doubt PZs marshalling abilities - as I wrote above, I'd be skeptical of a general who seems to have missed the rather obvious point that the other side also have a long term plan in mind (probably a better organised one than ours) and handing them short term victories will further their long term aims.

[BigEvil]

RBH is right on the essential fact that religious believers can do good science, so why should this not be said?


Because it is a semantical con game. Your essential fact is a half-truth. Throw in the other half and you are fine. Leave it out and you are misleading.

Science is no respecter of religion, it does not accomodate it. It follows the evidence, religion be damned.

Some people find their religion enhanced by science, some people find their religion utterly destroyed by science.

The part in bold is the other half.

[Worldtraveller]

In light of this (http://secularcafe.org/showthread.php?p=30440), does seeing this sort of incursion into science by the religious change your minds? Do you still think telling them that religion and science can be compatible is going to slow or stop this? Do you still think that scorn and ridicule is less effective, or maybe less deserving after seeing the constant attacks by the religious on science?

[SteveF]

In light of this (http://secularcafe.org/showthread.php?p=30440), does seeing this sort of incursion into science by the religious change your minds?

It looks like just another bunch of creationists doing their usual shit. I'm not particularly sure why it should be a mind changer.

Do you still think telling them that religion and science can be compatible is going to slow or stop this?

Do you think that alienating religious people who are to all intents and purposes on our side, is going to slow or stop this?

Do you still think that scorn and ridicule is less effective, or maybe less deserving after seeing the constant attacks by the religious on science?

There aren't constant attacks by the religious on science - there are constant attacks by certain religious people on science. There are other religious people who rub on perfectly well with evolution etc. There are also religious people who have no strong opinions and don't seek to influence the teaching of science.

Those people who overtly attack science are frequently deserving of scorn and ridicule (although this should include substantive arguments and not just invective). However, I see little point in directing such sentiments at the other groups.

[Hex]

There aren't constant attacks by the religious on science - there are constant attacks by certain religious people on science. There are other religious people who rub on perfectly well with evolution etc. There are also religious people who have no strong opinions and don't seek to influence the teaching of science.

Those people who overtly attack science are frequently deserving of scorn and ridicule (although this should include substantive arguments and not just invective). However, I see little point in directing such sentiments at the other groups.

That sums the crux of this up nicely, I think.

Religious beliefs are no excuse for bad science.

The fact that science can't address supernatural phenomena (since there's no natural evidence to be studied) doesn't mean that supernatural beliefs need be attacked. The concept that in many place the two can be mutually exclusive in people's cognitive maps means that you can address the science without the supernatural beliefs, and vice versa. However, if you attack the beliefs, you may may the people more resistant to getting the science.

What's more important, making 'belief enemies' or educating people about science? :dunno:

[Sodong]

There aren't constant attacks by the religious on science - there are constant attacks by certain religious people on science. There are other religious people who rub on perfectly well with evolution etc. There are also religious people who have no strong opinions and don't seek to influence the teaching of science.

Those people who overtly attack science are frequently deserving of scorn and ridicule (although this should include substantive arguments and not just invective). However, I see little point in directing such sentiments at the other groups.

That sums the crux of this up nicely, I think...Yes it does.

While most of the people I work with are probably non-believers, there are at least a few muslims, christians, buddhists, taoists, jainists and jews...probably other religions represented. When we work together we talk about stem cells, apoptosis, proteins, PDT or what might slow the metastasis of a particularly aggressive cancer. God(s) are never invoked. These are damned good scientists doing their best to find better treatments for life threatening disease. Should we tell them that they are not...cannot be "real" scientists because they somehow manage to reconcile what we consider an irrational belief? You could try it if you like but my bet is you'll get your ass handed to you on a platter. :)

[RBH]

I had a helluva time keeping up with the comments on that post -- my mailbox was stuffed.

You'll be interested to note that I looked more closely at NCSE's "Faith Project," and I now think they've gone too far (http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/04/let-me-try-agai.html). Pointing to the existence of scientists who are believers who nevertheless do good science is one thing, but outlining one particular way of reconciling science and religion is, I think, beyond NCSE's appropriate role. Larry Moran had a good rewording (http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/04/let-me-try-agai.html#comment-184733) of a potential NCSE statement on that in a comment.

And, to be frank, it's kind of fun to poke a stick in a hornet's nest sometimes, just to see 'em buzz. :D

[BigEvil]

And, to be frank, it's kind of fun to poke a stick in a hornet's nest sometimes, just to see 'em buzz. :D

Not to mention that it keeps everyone on their toes.

I personally enjoyed the back and forth. It's always fun and somewhat exhilarating to watch very intelligent and articulate people passionately argue over an issue of importance to them.

[Monad]

I can't seem to access Panda's Thumb from my University's browsers - for some reason it's marked as "adult content".

[Steviepinhead]

Those silly Pandas must be inserting their thumbs in the wrong locations, again!

[Monad]

Well I just hope it doesn't get me into trouble for trying to access adult content at work.

Why on earth would it be flagged as such - creationist net nanny developers?