Sam

Bluntly speaking, Myers, Dawkins and Coyne spend a lot of time preaching to their choir as well. I don’t think their rants are discouraging a lot of moderates who use religion more for social and cultural identification as a guide to the natural world and sincerely want to learn about the science you and others teach.

But the degree of accommodationism is also important. To some, even pointing out that a lot of phenomena that science supposedly can’t explain actually has been, is nothing less than an obnoxious, hardline assault on religious freedoms bound to offend every person of faith. In my opinion, that’s a little too accommodating to religious sensitivities for the sake of politics.

Actually not. The accommodationists include Ken Miller and Michael Ruse, who have been unceasing defenders of evolution. Their efforts against creationism and ID have been huge. The accommodationists argue that ardent fundamentalists are unlikely to come around. Their point is that the majority of Americans are not ardent fundamentalists, are only vaguely knowledgeable about science or evolution, and are put off by the frontal assault on religion from Dawkins, PZ, Coyne, et alia.

I teach large university classes in evolution. The students include some kids that sit at the Christian club tables in the student union, others in Islamic dress (mostly Levis, rock band tee shirts, and a head scarf), and others with some vague indication of religious affiliation such as a cross pin. These kids are not Creationists. They are interested to learn about the Dover Trial, earlier legal scuffles in the US about Creationist efforts to infiltrate the public school curriculum, and even the creationism movement in Turkey. They come out of the class understanding some evolution and science. While an anti-religious tone would put many of them off (they go to church with grandma, etc), a neutral discussion of why religion isn’t science, has no place in a science curriculum, and cannot make a contribution to understanding the natural world, does a good job.

Scientists are constantly trying to prove themselves wrong to understand the world better.

I wonder who the loud bullys are in this debate. Science doesn’t claim absolute knowledge of ANYTHING! Thats religion. If you read the article looking for hypocrisy on the part of the creationists, you will find it all over. How else can the opiate of the masses hope to stand up against the logic of science in debate.