Forget Evolution versus Creationism. The current hot war is between evolutionists who argue vociferously exactly how to beat the growing sentiments of anti-science and the threat to the enlightenment that is fundamentalism (as one participant commented: 'Should we bash religion with a crowbar or only with a baseball bat?'
1). To be fair, the theistic evolutionists are involved - but they are essentially what/who the war is over, not the participants.
So, what is the war about? As I said-theistic evolutionists. Consider the recent debate between and Dawkins and Collins. In general there are three positions on the debate, hopefully they will help elucidate what is going on here. The debate, incidentally, is multi layered.
- Dogma is irrational belief in the way the world works. Relgious dogma is somehow free from criticism but we can criticize Marxist dogma, or Fascist dogma. When dogma leads to policy decisions we tend to get problems. Example: Stem cell research should not be hampered by the evidence free dogmatic belief that human zygotes of 100 cells have a soul that makes them 'sacred'. They believe that appeasement in the debate is dangerous. We should not be siding with one group of deluded individuals simply because we have a common enemy (fundamentalism). They refer to appeasers as 'Neville Chamberlain evolutionists'
Proponents: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Larry Moran2
- Theistic Evolutionists don't let their religion get in the way of their science and so should be tolerated. They think that alienating the religious from science is only going to fuel fundamentalism. Some have ironically embraced the idea of Neville Chamberlains. They believe that (1)s are 'atheistic evangelicals' and are as fundamentally dangerous as the dangerous fundamentalists.
Proponents: Ed Brayton, John Lynch, and Pay Hayes
- Whilst the (1)s have a good point - they are making tactical errors. The (2)s also have a good point, but they are being too passive. We should try putting science to religious people in terms of their culture and beliefs. We can't rid the world of religion in one fell swoop, but we might be able to replace the awe and wonder of religion with that of the universe.
Proponents3: Neil deGrasse Tyson, Joan Roughgarden
So. They are the basics of the positions. Here follows the most prudent quotes I could find, one from each position, with links.
Moran writes:
Richard Dawkins writes about the "Neville Chamberlain 'appeasement' school" of evolutionists. These are scientists who are willing to compromise science in order to form an alliance with some religious groups who oppose Christian fundamentalism. Do you believe in miracles? That's okay, it's part of science. Do you believe that God guides evolution in order to produce beings who worship him? That's fine too; it's all part of the Neville Chamberlain version of intelligent design. Souls, moral law, life after death, a fine-tuned universe, angels, the efficacy of prayer, transubstantiation ... all these things are part of the new age science according to the appeasement school. There's no conflict with real science. We mustn't question these things for fear of alienating our potential allies in the fight against the IDiots. Welcome to the big tent.
...
Is the appeasement strategy working? Of course not, but the most amazing thing is happening. The Neville Chamberlain School thinks it is winning in spite of the fact that leading politicians oppose evolution; most schools don't teach evolution; and the general public doesn't accept evolution. Talk about delusion. The appeasers think we should continue down the same path that led us to this situation. They think we should continue to compromise science in order to accommodate the religious moderates.
You can see more
Here, also PZ Myers writes similarly
here
Ed Brayton writes:
All it does is feed into the perception that everyone on our side is out to punish, censor or destroy the careers of those who disagree with us. And I'm trying to make clear that that is not the case, that the only people who advocate such tactics are, in fact, people fighting an entirely different battle than the one we're fighting, and with tactics that we disapprove of. And I want to make the distinction clear between the two groups.
There is no "movement" being divided here, there are two entirely different groups fighting two entirely different battles. Our interests may be temporarily and theoretically in line at times, but the fact is that your fight is significantly undermining our fight by reinforcing their worst stereotypes (and confusing you with us), by alienating an enormous base that would otherwise support us, and by declaring our most valuable spokesman to be enemies of the cause.
Well Ken Miller may be an enemy to your cause, but not to our cause. And that is exactly my point: we aren't fighting for the same goals. And pointing that out does not divide a movement, it recognizes two distinct movements with two distinct goals. And I frankly want to distance myself from your goals as much as possible.
Here, also see
here.
Tyson writes:
You are a professor of the public understanding of science, not professor of delivering truth to the public. And these are two different exercises. One of them is you put the truth out there, and like you said, they either buy your book or they don't. Well that's not being an educator, that's just putting it out there. Being an educator is not only getting the truth right, but, there has got to be an act of persuasion in there as well.
Persuasion isn't always: Here's the facts, you're either an idiot or you're not. It's here are the facts and here is a sensitivity to your state of mind. And it's the facts plus the sensitivity when convolved together, that creates impact. And I worry that your methods and how articulately barbed you can be ends up simply being ineffective when you have much more power of influence than is currently being reflected in your output.
here
So there you go. How do we deal with the situation? What is the best way? Do we attack dogmatic religious beliefs as strongly as we attack other dogmatic beliefs? Do we attack only fundamentalist religious beliefs, and give a break to people like theistic evolutionists? Do we try and convince the religious public that science can be wonderful and is not to be feared?
Or...is everybody actually agreeing with each other but failing to understand the other person's position?
This might be the first time I have made a thread that I recommended go in Social Issues and Creation/Evolution, but another 'social...issues' forum might be appropriate too.
1 Melvin J. Konner, Ph.D. - Konner was very much against this attitude and was deriding the attitude of many of the scientists in the debate.
2 Regulars at this forum will know Moran for his articles on Talk Origins. Notably:
Evolution is a fact and a theory.
3 These are gray area people, so they might sometimes be(1)s and sometimes (2)s, so it isn't really a concrete position.
™ Version 4.2