Though I do not speak in any official capacity for FR, as a member of this forum for nearly nine years, I have to say FR isnt anti-science at all; its anti abuse of science that is, to say, any use of science dedicated to political and social change purposes. The scientific method itself allows no scope for such proclivities/activities.
Personally, I strongly object to this "disenchanted evo" mischaracterization. And Nancy Pearceys article well documents the reasons why in logic and reason I feel justified in objecting to the baseless claim that FR is "anti-science."
In the end, science must confine itself to the elucidation of the physical. When it starts treading on metaphysical territory, it is illegitimately going beyond the scope of its mission, and trespassing on territory that its method is not designed to engage. That is to say, trespassing on philosophy and theology: It simply has no warrant there. And perhaps the time has come when certain scientists need to be reminded of that.
FWIW.
Must leave now, but I look forward to making some further comments later this evening.
"In the end, science must confine itself to the elucidation of the physical. When it starts treading on metaphysical territory, it is illegitimately going beyond the scope of its mission, and trespassing on territory that its method is not designed to engage"
I'd like to second this comment BB. It's right on.
As far as I know, FR is the only site with an ongoing dialogue on the "crevo" issues.
I learned a lot from both sides.
bump
Just getting to this. This sums up the debate and the cost of losing it.