What's the best strategy for defending evolution?

Yes, but I prefer the term "nihilist."

Aximili23 Good science education includes attack of one's beliefs and assumptions about the world.I think it is healthy to have the level of debate and bashing about on the personal level for the simple fact that people for the most part never question the stuff they accept and do not realize how some of the arguements they use are incapable of being consonant with reality.We are humans, full of deciet, full of pride, basically full of it, and when one must have one's favorite views dashed irrevocably by a solidly valid arguement then it hurts but it is the price you must pay for participation in the realm of investigation about the world.
If a person wishes to inject a belief about the world in the context of science then they cannot, therefore, cry foul when they are undone by logic and critical onslaught of their assumption and conclusions.To answer your question then I would say if the religion, including that of christianity, is using aspects of religion in a scientific frame then then it has entered the ring and must fight.

---

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.
Douglas Adams

Speak for yourself.From a political point of view--from a strategic point of view--I would think you would want to downplay the implications of evolution.

Teaching people to think rationally and critically sounds very idealistic, but in the short term I don't think it's a viable strategy. Creationism is an emotional, faith-based belief that by definition rejects logic and evidence. Presenting solid arguments and data isn't that effective; people are rarely going to listen. How many times has evolution been clearly explained to creationists in this very forum, only to have them obstinately cling to lies and fallacies? And these are creationists who have taken the time to actually visit an online forum. Most others will just hear this sort of thing from the news, or their churches. In the loud and fast-paced world of mass media, there's very little time and patience for a proper education of a complex science.So unfortunately, yes I do think that the battle is in part of tricking people of faith into accepting evolution. I suspect that the recent Evolution Sunday event as led by the clergy has probably been far more persuasive to the general public than lengthy journal articles and speeches by scientists. (Never mind that it's the latter that contains more solid facts and logic). Intelligent design, for all of its vacuousness, has been such a strong rallying point for the religious right precisely because it's such an ingenious marketing strategy, with fancy terms like "irreducible complexity" and a "Teach the controversy" slogan. I think that scientists also need to adopt similar (although more honest) PR tactics if they want to get their message across. There should be a stronger appeal to emotion, and an emphasis on short simple messages that can spread easily (the FSM being perhaps an excellent example, if it weren't antagonistic to religion).The bottom line is, people ARE superstitious; polls have repeatedly shown that more than half of Americans believe in some form of creationism, and they have for decades. So if scientists want to get people to accept evolution, then they absolutely DO have to present it in a light that is acceptable to a superstitious mode of thought. Hopefully in the long run, through a solid and well-founded elementary and high school public education, Americans can be taught to think rationally and have a greater trust and appreciation for science. But in the short term, scientists will need to resort to trickier tactics.

I disagree. People want to think this way. The idea that rationality and critical thinking are virtues is instilled in us from a very early age in our culture. People want to be able to approach things this way but they don't often know how.The evolution debate gives us an opportunity to do that, because it's the perfect example of emotionally-comforting falsehoods on one side and scientifically-supported, ominous truths on the other. I think that's absolutely a mistake. For one thing, we'll never be as good at lying as the creationists are. You can't lie for truth; you'll get caught every time. And when you do it makes people wonder "if what he was trying to get across was true, why did he have to lie to do it?" There are some groups that the American people simply won't allow to use underhanded tactics, groups like science and the Democratic party. It's unfair but true. Lying and deciet are tools that Americans will only allow Republicans and creationists to employ.

Yes, there's no doubt that there's a theism/atheism debate that goes right alongside of the evolution/creation debate (as well as the pro-choice/life debate, stem cell research debate, and many other issues of the culture wars). Christians do object to evolution on religious grounds, and these objections are shot down when subjected to critical analysis and evidence. But consider what happens when a religious, uninformed person (nearly everyone in the US) witnesses such a debate. Perhaps I'm just extremely cynical, but I don't think he's going to carefully consider the arguments and then think "Oh, those are excellent arguments against my religious beliefs; I'll have to convert to a different faith." No, he'll instinctively think "That scientist guy is attacking religion and implying that there's no God; he therefore can't possibly be right".Sometimes the quality of the argumentation doesn't matter, or isn't enough. The debate has to be framed in a way that makes evolution acceptable on a more instictive, emotional level.

There's a difference between outright lying and just not mentioning something. You know, like Bill Clinton and Monica.

I was going to object to this by pointing out that creationists are caught lying all the time, and they're still going strong. And then I read the rest of your post: With this, I totally agree.

Then perhaps you agree that, strategically speaking, atheists should censor themselves, or at least their atheist views? Or that theistic evolutionists should be put in the forefront of the debate?

robinrohan Why would I want to downplay evolution rr?

Thinking through all the implications leads to atheism, materialism, etc. Most people don't like that.

Yes, I agree that evolutionists should never resort to lying. But I'm a little conflicted here; I sort of agree with Dawkins and Myers that scientific thinking would tend to weaken religious faith. But I also think that this opinion should be downplayed by evolutionists engaging in debate. Which, as robinrohan had amusingly pointed out, is not quite the same as lying, but is sort of deceitful nonetheless.Anyway, to get some insight on what other possible strategies might be adopted to defend evolution, check out this article by Chris Mooney.

robinrohanBeing as I am atheist I cannot see how that would be a problem for me rr

I don't think evolutionists should even respond to such an accusation. Shepherding people's faith isn't the job of scientists. If someone's faith can't withstand reality then there's not much we can do about that. They were going to run headlong into something they couldn't reconcile with their fundamentalism, anyway."The most curious social convention of the great age in which we live is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected." - H.L. Mencken

I don't believe atheist evolutionists should censor themselves. Their position is their position. It is up to the theistic evolutionists to speak up and provide a voice and presence. And they are.If atheists also want to support the position of theistic evolutionists, then that is their individual coices.But reality will win out. Even if 100% of the public were Biblical Creationists, all it would mean is that they are wrong.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion