I'm not sure that this is relevant. Atheist evolution defenders usually do attack the position, and yes in many cases religious ideas. But what I'm asking is whether or not these attacks on religious ideas, and particularly the idea of theism, is damaging to the cause of science education and acceptance.
only if the scientist feels the need to use the science wrong, ie: to say there is no god, then yes it would damage theists views of science. mostly for the fundi's who have a loud voice, if their message says science is anti-god from inference that no one talks about god that would damage it
No serious evolutionist is saying that evolution=atheism, this is an argument you usually hear from creationists. But this argument is perceived when famous evolution defenders such as Dawkins are also vocal atheists. It strengthens the impression that evolution is a necessarily atheistic belief, rather than a well-supported scientific theory.
people as liable to believe that if you do not talk about god you don't believe in it i guess
In a way, my question can be rephrased as, should people like Dawkins censor themselves, or their atheistic arguments, so that evolution can be more widely accepted by the public?
if his views boil down to saying there is no god and science shows it, then yes he should, since he is giving a false perception of scientists and science
People can criticize religious belief simply in the context of the broader culture wars. Some people perceive religion, or particularly fundamentalism, as an imposition of morals by one group on another, and on this basis alone I think it's perfectly appropriate to criticize certain religious views. With evolution as one of the many issues within the greater culture wars, and with atheists and church-state-separationists usually on the same side as evolutionists, the association between evolutionism and atheism can be created. Do you agree with this or not?
i would agree with this
™ Version 4.2