A Spoonful of Jesus Helps Darwin Go Down (What the Evos really think of Christian compromise)

WEIT ^ | Jerry Coyne, Ph.D.

[GodGunsGuts]

For if we ever begin to suppress our search to understand nature, to quench our own intellectual excitement in a misguided effort to present a united front where it does not and should not exist, then we are truly lost.

–Stephen Jay Gould

[Y]ou’ve heard me complain about scientific organizations that sell evolution by insisting that it’s perfectly consistent with religion. Evolution, they say, threatens many peoples’ religious views — not just the literalism of Genesis, but also the morality that supposedly emanates from scripture. Professional societies like the National Academy of Sciences — the most elite organization of American scientists — have concluded that to make evolution palatable to Americans, you must show that it is not only consistent with religion, but also no threat to it. (And so much the better if, as theologians like John Haught assert, evolution actually deepens our faith.) Given that many members of such organizations are atheists, their stance of accommodationism appears to be a pragmatic one.

Here I argue that the accommodationist position of the National Academy of Sciences, and especially that of the National Center for Science Education, is a self-defeating tactic, compromising the very science they aspire to defend. By seeking union with religious people, and emphasizing that there is no genuine conflict between faith and science, they are making accommodationism not just a tactical position, but a philosophical one. By ignoring the significant dissent in the scientific community about whether religion and science can be reconciled, they imply a unanimity that does not exist. Finally, by consorting with scientists and philosophers who incorporate supernaturalism into their view of evolution, they erode the naturalism that underpins modern evolutionary theory.

Let’s begin with a typical accommodationist statement—this one from the National Academy of Sciences...

[fanfan]

These are the people who constantly insult creationists that you are so eager to defend.

Excuse me?

I was not defending anyone on the other thread.

I did however explain again in post #113 what a waste of time it is to be angry and argue.

[editor-surveyor]

Do you by chance write fortune cookie inserts for a living? :o)

[tacticalogic]

With real science, there is no need for compromise.

Does "real" science have a "real" scientific method that can be communicated directly, in clear an unamabiguous terms?

[Moonman62]

You just can’t deal with evolution being stated as a “materialist religious assumption about the unobservable, unrepeatable past.”

Evolution is compatible with what I and everybody else observes, living things replicating by natural means. I have yet to see a living thing created out of nothing.

[GodGunsGuts]

You have said what you came here to say to me, no? Or are you just going out of your way to be tedious (and therefore insulting)?

[editor-surveyor]

That’s a rather vague observation, since science has never hit me in the face. Science is the life blood of my source of income, which hits me mostly in the wallet, in the most pleasant of fashons.

When you get old enough to get a job, I reccommend that you shy away from technology, as you have absolutely no aptitude therein. Try commentary and blogging on beauty contests.

[editor-surveyor]

"Does "real" science have a "real" scientific method that can be communicated directly, in clear an unamabiguous terms?"

To all but the evolution and global warming cadre, it seems so.

[fanfan]

YOU pinged me to this thread.
Cut it out now, GGG.

Have a good night.

[editor-surveyor]

"Evolution is compatible with what I and everybody else observes, living things replicating by natural means"

an unsupportable assertion at best, since there is no evidence that any living thing has ever evolved into anything other than exactly what it's parentage was.

[CottShop]

Yep- just like Darwin Central and talkorigins.org- their ‘claim to fame’ is that they have ‘Christians’ on their little comittees- but there is NO denying those folks are about as ‘Christian as Aminidinutjob is- their sites are undeniably ANTI-CHRISTIAN- Their contempt for TRUE Christianity is disgusting- but their misguided ideology consists of beliving they can deceive the masses by appealing to Christians who are too lazy to investigate their ‘scientific’ claims in detail

[DevNet]

*I reccommend that you shy away from technology, as you have absolutely no aptitude therein.*

How do you know this? I haven’t demonstrated any tech skills I may or may not have.

[GodGunsGuts]

Sorry, I got this thread confused with the other thread, but my reply still stands (with respect to the other thread). I will pray that God opens your spiritual eyes to the invisible war going on right in front of you. All I keep thinking is no wonder Canada has quietly gone to the socialists...and America (God forbid!) is not far behind. If you don’t stand for Christianity, to include God’s account of creation in Genesis, you are likely to fall for just about anything.

[CottShop]

[[ the most elite organization of American scientists — have concluded that to make evolution palatable to Americans, you must show that it is not only consistent with religion, but also no threat to it.]]

That’s EXACTLY what they deceitfully do! Sadly many misguided folks will buy into that crap- and liek I said- never investigate the incredible claims of macroevolution for themselves, and they’ll be duped into thinking macroevolution is ‘compatible’ with ‘Christianity and hte4 bible’

I also love how they claim “You have no right to decide who is and who isn’t a ‘Christian’- and they’ll throw out all manner of out-of-context verses to ‘back up’ their statement- and do so with a straight face- and again, sadly many people will fall prey to their subtle deceit

[GodGunsGuts]

I got a taste of a few of those so-called Christians on the last couple of threads. Thanks for your reply, dear CottShop!

[DevNet]

What right do you have to decide who is or isn’t a Christian?

[CottShop]

[[What right do you have to decide who is or isn’t a Christian?]]

Right on cue- God given right- We’re commanded to spiritually discern FALSE TEACHERS, and to expose them when we spot them- But thanks for playing

[editor-surveyor]

You’ve demonstrated far more than you realize.

[CottShop]

[[What right do you have to decide who is or isn’t a Christian?]]

By the way- We’re ALSO given instructions in God’s word as to how to spiritually discern who is and who isn’t Christian- By their fruits shall ye know them- and when their fruit are rotten- it isn’t too difficult to discern they are NOT of God

[DevNet]

What does this do? IEnumerable data = ...; var q = ParallelEnumerable.Select( ParallelEnumerable.OrderBy( ParallelEnumerable.Where(data.AsParallel(), (x) => p(x)), (x) => k(x)), (x) => f(x)); foreach (var e in q) a(e);

[DevNet]

Surely you can provide those instructions.