BLoggins02

I think there's a bigger issue here than just the points they discussed: it seems as though scientists are finally starting to stand up to creationists.

For a long while, scientists have been quite standoffish about the E/C debate. There are probably several reasons for this (the most likely being that evolutionary biologists doing doctorate or higher research simply do not have the time or the patience to fend off morons who insist that the object of their study is breaking the 2LOT). But, in general, I also think that scientists have learned to walk on eggshells when it comes to religion.

Indeed, most scientists would have no problem for the viewpoint that natural processes such as evolution and God are not neccessarily mutually exclusive. The turning point, I think, has been several fold:

1) Religion is becoming less and less popular due to the incidents of 9/11, the RCC sex scandal, wacko dickheads like Fred Phelps, and the proliferation of the Internet, which has shown many of the general public the holes in apologetic arguments like so much swiss cheese. It's easier to attack a viewpoint if you don't have to worry about being seen as an arrogant secularist bully.

2) Scientists are beginning to realize that, although they have clearly won the battle over creationists when it comes to pure science, evidence, and non-boneheaded thinking, they have not faired so well in the political arena. Because of the reason mentioned above, scientists are becoming increasingly less tolerant of the level of scientific ignorance (in the US at least, where it is quite simply appaling) and more willing to fight back for the right to teach good science in our classrooms.

3) The ID movement is a much bigger threat to science than biblical creationism ever was. YECs and others were easy to dismiss as religious wackos who could feel free to indoctrinate their children as they pleased, as long as they kept it out of the public schools. The ID movement, however, masquerades as real science while at the same time completing destroying the concepts of the scientific method. Most dangerously, ID has no practical value whatsoever. It's sole purpose is to give people a pseudo-scientific answer to one of the big questions of life. You'll never see an ID scientist using his or her "theories" to help cure deseases or find the source of genetic disorders.

I believe scientists are beginning to realize how dangerous ID is, because it has the potential to train the public that non-natural, non-testable, non-practical "science" is actually science.

The Scientific American article is a good first step. In the future it would be nice to see major news organizations and public interest magazines expose the ID and Creationist movements for what they are: lies intended only to indoctrinate, never to help or explain.

[/ent of rant]

Valentine Pontifex

To a certain extent, but still not enough. It is nice that SA publishes some debunking, but the real test will be on the 99.99% of the scientists not involved in creating magazines like SA. Will they write letters to the editor, will they testify before boards, will they join organizations fighting the creationists like the NCSE and/or local groups, will they sign petitions, will they bother to learn about creationist fallacies outside of their own narrow specialities, and in general go out of the way to join the fight.
I don't see any evidence whatsoever that that religion or theism are any less popular. I think you are deluding yourself here. Fundamentalists extremists and large authoritarian hierachies of some churches are have taken a hit. If anything, doubt about religion is probably more unpopular in the post-nine-eleven enviroment than in the pre-nine-eleven enviroment.
If scientists are only now realizing this then they have a real problem with political ignorance. Also I am not sure that scientists are less tolerant of scientific ignorance is really accurate. They have been whining about for over a half-century.
Agreed.
Though the ID movements is a greater immediate threat, I think you are vastly underestimating the YECs. They have very effective in eliminating strong and widespread evolution education. They are still probably reaching more people that the ID groups are. And they are well financed and their people account almost certainly account for a great deal of ID's support.


We better put the emphasis on first step. This SA article will need follow-up to be truely effective. And they need to give more than general answers. Give some very specific examples of out-of-context quotes, etc. A profile on Eugenie Scott might be a good idea. Maybe an article on The Icons of Evolution since pro-science people will need to know in detail what is wrong with that book since it will be thrown at them and since Wells has done an impressive job at tricking pro-science people into thinking that his points are correct.

"/ent of rant"? A bet Treebeard could make
short work of the IDists. :-)

BLoggins02

You are probably the correct one here. I would like to clarify that I was probably thinking of the more extreme fundamentalists and radicals when I wrote that.

I don't doubt that SOME scientists have a problem with political ignorance. If I were a scientist, I would find much more interest in my work than in the bickerings of non-academics. And they may have been "whining" about it for over a half-century, but my point was that it has now become easier to criticize the church and/or religious ideals that conflict with science.

Oops, LOTR reference understood

Valentine Pontifex

There is one thing in that SA article that creationists have a credible case for saying is outright wrong. The problem might be a bit of a bad wording. It is this: "...to make him [Gould] sound as though he had doubted evolution,..."
While there is utterly no doubt that Gould's views about evolution and the fossil record have been repeatedly distorted by the creationists -- often via out-of-context quoting as SA says, it is not true that creationists have claimed that Gould doubted evolution. I have never seen any of them do so and most are actually very clear that Gould is a staunch evolutionist. I don't think "sound like" is a strong enough disclaimer. What they are really doing is "Even the evolutionists say it; praise the Lord!"

This is were I would have rather the article have been written by a vetern debater of creationists than by the editor of SA since such a person will have known that creationist often rant on this point and are often right when they do so. And such a complicated issue probably should have been given more than a single paragraph. And an actual example of how what Gould said was distorted should have been given. Merely claiming something is out-of-context is not very convincing; showing that it was taken out of context can be devastating.

I hope that when SA does the next article on subject that they will not try to debunk the entire width of creationism in 8 pages. I think it would be more effective to take a note from the creationists' own playbook and concentrate an a few examples of clear creationist dishonesty and gross incompetance. Alternatively give answers to a much narrow set of creationist attacks like the "Icons."

Shake

OOPS! I liked the article so much I started a similar thread to this one. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> Well, if there's one thing I've learned here it's that topics do get repeated quite often.

Secular Pinoy

rbochnermd and Lord Valentine, do I get a membership card if I joined the NCSE? I want to be a card-carrying Evolutionist. I'm already a CC Skeptic and Humanist. Heck, I was tempted to join AiG, so I can refer to myself as a card-carrying moron!