Reply #63: In case anybody is interested in an honest, rational evaluation...

[Merlin]

I wrote the following to a nuclear physicist friend who wants me to help them do PR against the fundies' invasion of school districts:

I believe our side is taking a dangerous tack by essentially equating Darwinism with atheism or agnosticism.

True, Behe has virtually thrown in with the fundamentalists. He and his theory thus deserve all the condemnation we can heap upon them.

But ID's central premise is supported by the vast majority of the public (plus many eminent scientists), namely that the universe is so complex it must be the creation of a higher form of intelligence (e.g. than humans). We must not permit Behe and the fundies to own that assertion in the court of public opinion.

Our side must grasp the fact that just as it is a non sequitur for them to claim that assertion proves the validity of a Genesis creation, so it is an equally unsupportable non sequitur for us to say Darwinian science proves a non-teleological universe.

The danger of our position is severe, as you point out. I believe that by stretching our facts as we are doing, we give an opening for the court to rule the other way. We must not join the ID forces in creating the public impression that Darwinian theory is incompatible with an intelligent creator. We must not allow them to own the possibility of a god.

It surely would not harm our cause if science teachers were permitted to add--in their teaching of evolution--the fact that some believe evolution is compatible with the idea of an intelligent creator of the universe.

We must not rest our argument on atheism. A far stronger argument is that the bible is only a primitive tribal attempt to explain the universe; that the bible's god is a fairy tale, but that Darwinian science does not conflict with more rational interpretations of a higher creative force.

Failing that, we risk getting on the wrong side of this case and of public opinion generally.

If this comes down to a popularity contest between the God of America's true believers and the atheism of many of its scientists, guess who wins.

That's my view, and I suppose the reason I've been a bit reluctant to get involved is that I'm not sure how heretical such an outlook is to those on our side of this thing.


This is is very positive reply:

Your view is not heretical. Indeed, it is held by the vast majority of scientists and educators who support science and the theory of evolution. It is the other side which equates evolution and atheism, and continues to vigorously attack theistic evolutionists like Ken Miller from Brown. Despite a semi-infinite set of rebuttals, they continue to make this claim because of its political and religious value. I have brought almost the entire Christian and Jewish communities in (state 1) and (state 2) to the table to support evolution, including the... (state) Council of Churches, representing about 600,000 members.

A small number of evolutionists are brazen atheists. The most outspoken and famous is Richard Dawkins. But you will be pleased to know that almost the entire rest of the nation recognizes that equating evolution with atheism is a losing proposition.