Read the original blog post here: http://blog.case.edu/singham/

There is a new war between science and religion, rising from the ashes of the old one, which ended with the defeat of the antievolution forces in the 2005 "intelligent design" trial. The new war concerns questions that are more profound than whether or not to teach evolution. Unlike the old science-religion war, this battle is going to be fought not in the courts but in the arena of public opinion. The new war pits those who argue that science and "moderate" forms of religion are compatible worldviews against those who think they are not.

The former group, known as accommodationists, seeks to carve out areas of knowledge that are off-limits to science, arguing that certain fundamental features of the world—such as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the origin of the universe—allow for God to act in ways that cannot be detected using the methods of science. Some accommodationists, including Francis Collins, head of the National Institutes of Health, suggest that there are deeply mysterious, spiritual domains of human experience, such as morality, mind, and consciousness, for which only religion can provide deep insights.

Prestigious organizations like the National Academy of Sciences have come down squarely on the side of the accommodationists. On March 25, the NAS let the John Templeton Foundation use its venue to announce that the biologist (and accommodationist) Francisco Ayala had been awarded its Templeton Prize, with the NAS president himself, Ralph Cicerone, having nominated him. The foundation has in recent years awarded its prize to scientists and philosophers who are accommodationists, though it used to give it to more overtly religious figures, like Mother Teresa and Billy Graham. Critics are disturbed at the NAS's so closely identifying itself with the accommodationist position. As the physicist Sean Carroll said, "Templeton has a fairly overt agenda that some scientists are comfortable with, but very many are not. In my opinion, for a prestigious scientific organization to work with them sends the wrong message."

In a 2008 publication titled Science, Evolution, and Creationism, the NAS stated: "Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. ... Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist. ... Many religious beliefs involve entities or ideas that currently are not within the domain of science. Thus, it would be false to assume that all religious beliefs can be challenged by scientific findings."

Those of us who disagree—sometimes called "new atheists"—point out that historically, the scope of science has always expanded, steadily replacing supernatural explanations with scientific ones. Science will continue this inexorable march, making it highly likely that the accommodationists' strategy will fail. After all, there is no evidence that consciousness and mind arise from anything other than the workings of the physical brain, and so those phenomena are well within the scope of scientific investigation. What's more, because the powerful appeal of religion comes precisely from its claims that the deity intervenes in the physical world, in response to prayers and such, religious claims, too, fall well within the domain of science. The only deity that science can say nothing about is a deity who does nothing at all.

In support of its position, the National Academy of Sciences makes a spurious argument: "Newspaper and television stories sometimes make it seem as though evolution and religion are incompatible, but that is not true. Many scientists and theologians have written about how one can accept both faith and the validity of biological evolution. Many past and current scientists who have made major contributions to our understanding of the world have been devoutly religious. ... Many scientists have written eloquently about how their scientific studies have increased their awe and understanding of a creator. The study of science need not lessen or compromise faith."

But the fact that some scientists are religious is not evidence of the compatibility of science and religion. As Michael Shermer, founder and editor of Skeptic magazine, says in his book Why People Believe Weird Things (A.W.H. Freeman/Owl Book, 2002), "Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons." Jerry Coyne, a professor in the department of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago, notes, "True, there are religious scientists and Darwinian churchgoers. But this does not mean that faith and science are compatible, except in the trivial sense that both attitudes can be simultaneously embraced by a single human mind."

Accommodationists are alarmed that their position has been challenged by a recent flurry of best-selling books, widely read articles, and blogs. In Britain an open letter expressing this concern was signed by two Church of England bishops; a spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain; a member of the Evangelical Alliance; Professor Lord Winston, a fertility pioneer; Professor Sir Martin Evans, a winner of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine; and others. The letter said, "We respectfully ask those contemporary Darwinians who seem intent on using Darwin's theory as a vehicle for promoting an anti-theistic agenda to desist from doing so as they are, albeit unintentionally, turning people away from the theory."

Such solicitousness for the sensitivities of so-called religious moderates is not new. During the run-up to the Scopes trial, in 1925, the accommodationists of that era were similarly uneasy about Clarence Darrow's defending John T. Scopes because they felt that his openly expressed scorn for religious beliefs might alienate potential religious allies. But Darrow's performance in that trial is now viewed as one of the high points in opposing the imposition of religious indoctrination in public schools. "Few Americans have ever done so much for their country in a whole lifetime as Darrow did in two hours," H.L. Mencken wrote after Darrow's withering questioning of William Jennings Bryan.

Accommodationists frequently brand us new atheists as "extreme," "uncivil," "rude," and responsible for setting a "bad tone." However, those accusations are rarely accompanied by concrete examples of such impolite speech. Behind the charges seems to lie the assumption that it is rude to even question religious beliefs or to challenge the point of view of the accommodationists. Apparently the polite thing to do is keep quiet.

Mencken rightly deplored that undue deference to religious beliefs. He wrote in the immediate aftermath of the Scopes trial, "Even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights," but he "has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. ... The meaning of religious freedom, I fear, is sometimes greatly misapprehended. It is taken to be a sort of immunity, not merely from governmental control but also from public opinion."

Why have organizations like the National Academy of Sciences sided with the accommodationists even though there is no imperative to take a position? After all, it would be perfectly acceptable to simply advocate for good science and stay out of this particular fray.

One has to suspect that tactical considerations are at play here. The majority of Americans subscribe to some form of faith tradition. Some scientists may fear that if science is viewed as antithetical to religion, then even moderate believers may turn away from science and join the fundamentalists.

But political considerations should not be used to silence honest critical inquiry. Richard Dawkins has challenged the accommodationist strategy, calling it "a cowardly cop-out. I think it's an attempt to woo the sophisticated theological lobby and to get them into our camp and put the creationists into another camp. It's good politics. But it's intellectually disreputable."

Evolution, and science in general, will ultimately flourish or die on its scientific merits, not because of any political strategy. Good science is an invaluable tool in humanity's progress and survival, and it cannot be ignored or suppressed for long. The public may turn against this or that theory in the short run but will eventually have to accept evolution, just as it had to accept the Copernican heliocentric system.

It is strange that the phrase "respect for religion" has come to mean that religious beliefs should be exempt from the close scrutiny that other beliefs are subjected to. Such an attitude infantilizes religious believers, suggesting that their views cannot be defended and can be preserved only by silencing those who disagree.

Mencken said of Bryan's religious beliefs, "Not only are they not supported by the known facts; they are in direct contravention of the known facts. No man whose information is sound and whose mind functions normally can conceivably credit them. ... What should be a civilized man's attitude toward such superstitions? It seems to me that the only attitude possible to him is one of contempt. If he admits that they have any intellectual dignity whatever, he admits that he himself has none. If he pretends to a respect for those who believe in them, he pretends falsely, and sinks almost to their level. When he is challenged he must answer honestly, regardless of tender feelings."

While Mencken's use of the word "contempt" is perhaps too harsh, he makes a valid point: that no beliefs should be exempt from scrutiny simply because many people have held them for a long time. It is time to remove the veil that has protected religious beliefs for so long. After all, if we concede without argument that mainstream religious beliefs are compatible with science, how can we argue that witchcraft and astrology are not?

For the most part, I have always thought that there is absolutely no problem is having religious beliefs and practicing the scientific method. After all, why wouldn't the amazing nature of the universe and the astoundingly beautiful details about how it works be reinforcement for spiritual beliefs?

But, I am now moving towards the idea that if you have serious religions beliefs, then your brain is fundamentally damaged, and nothing you think, especially not your conclusions based on evidence, can be trusted.\

Religious people should just be put in to camps.

Posted by MutantMandias For the most part, I have always thought that there is absolutely no problem is having religious beliefs and practicing the scientific method. After all, why wouldn't the amazing nature of the universe and the astoundingly beautiful details about how it works be reinforcement for spiritual beliefs? But, I am now moving towards the idea that if you have serious religions beliefs, then your brain is fundamentally damaged, and nothing you think, especially not your conclusions based on evidence, can be trusted.\ Religious people should just be put in to camps.

They already go to camp! "Amazing" and "beautiful," as much as I agree with those sentiments, are human conceits. I have to admit, though, sitting through as many medical school lectures as I do (I'm a video tech at a med school), the amazing-ness of the human body never ceases to... amaze me. I can see where people might think that it was designed. But of course, that doesn't mean it was.

I really like Einstein's answer when someone asked him whether he believed in God: "I believe in Spinoza's god, that god is the sum total of all the physical laws of the universe."

There are many scientists that that fully believe in ID and it does not interfere with science. No one ever said (or at least I havent) that the belief in intelligent design has to destry science.

I find it ridiculous that a theory is being taught as fact in schools.

Oh dear god. Wow.


Holy shit.


Wow.

Posted by Mr_Fiend There are many scientists that that fully believe in ID and it does not interfere with science. No one ever said (or at least I havent) that the belief in intelligent design has to destry science. I find it ridiculous that a theory is being taught as fact in schools.

I think you're confusing "hypothesis" with "theory." ID is a hypothesis, evolution is a theory. Look up the definitions if you need to.

Posted by splumer I think you're confusing "hypothesis" with "theory." ID is a hypothesis, evolution is a theory. Look up the definitions if you need to.

Ugh, ok. Regardless,

It's not proven as a fact, so why is it taught like one? You guys get onto Christians for forcing "religion" down the throats of children, when you in turn are doing the same with the evolution theory, giving them no alternative.

Wow.

Posted by Mr_Fiend Ugh, ok. Regardless, It's not proven as a fact, so why is it taught like one? You guys get onto Christians for forcing "religion" down the throats of children, when you in turn are doing the same with the evolution theory, giving them no alternative.

Without arguing the minutiae of evolution, about which neither of us is an expert, I will say that it is because theories have been tested, peer-reviewed, etc., to a large extent and over a long period of time, and have been accepted by the scientific mainstream. Hypotheses, by their very nature, have not. Why should we bother teaching hypotheses at all? Every scientific experiment begins with a hypothesis; most are discarded when they are tested and found not to be supported by the evidence gathered during experimentation. It is scientifically invalid (and intellectually dishonest) to search for, and accept, only evidence which supports one's hypothesis. All evidence must be considered in order for one's conclusion to be considered valid.

Example:
I watch a lot of ghost-hunting shows. I like Ghost Hunters, because they at least have a pretense of the scientific method. Ghost Adventures (three doofuses hunting ghosts) treats every noise or aberration of any kind as evidence proving a location is haunted. Rather than saying "That was a weird noise, let's find out what caused it," they say "Did you hear that ghost making that sound like the pitter patter of squirrel-sized feet from the roof?"

Not the best example, but I think it works.

Posted by splumer ... Not the best example, but I think it works.

Better example... Gravity is a theory.

And this is why creationism is bullshit.
Einstein muthafuka!

Thank you and goodnight.

Posted by MutantMandias Better example... Gravity is a theory.

Not exactly. Why gravity exists is theoretical, but how it behaves is well understood, to the point where we speak of the "law of gravity."

Posted by splumer Not exactly. Why gravity exists is theoretical, but how it behaves is well understood, to the point where we speak of the "law of gravity."

No, "Law" is given as a historic footnote, gravity is still not fully understood. Should you spot the planet vulcan (its between mercury and the sun btw) that statement would be proven wrong.

Evolution is pretty robust though. Not a lot of holes in the concept, even if there could be a few in the fossil record.

That said, religion and science shouldn't coexist because religion seeks to unify the objective and subjective, while science just tries to do away with the subjective. Art and science though, should exist, as should art and mysticism. Damn the church for doing away with alchemy...

Posted by earthworm No, "Law" is given as a historic footnote, gravity is still not fully understood. Should you spot the planet vulcan (its between mercury and the sun btw) that statement would be proven wrong. Evolution is pretty robust though. Not a lot of holes in the concept, even if there could be a few in the fossil record. That said, religion and science shouldn't coexist because religion seeks to unify the objective and subjective, while science just tries to do away with the subjective. Art and science though, should exist, as should art and mysticism. Damn the church for doing away with alchemy...

The Earth's gravitational pull is a constant, expressed as "1g," that makes it a law. But whatever.

Evolution is more than "pretty robust." It's understood better than gravity.

I don't think science tries to do away with the subjective; it's just that subjective judgements have no place in scientific inquiry. Subjectivity is more suited to the arts.

There are both "law of gravity" and "theory of gravity."

The LAW of gravity expresses an observable truth about the practical effects of what we call gravity. Newton established equations that (mostly) reliably predicted experience. It was a LAW, even though it wasn't exactly right.

The THEORY of gravity tries to examine WHY it works from fundamental causes. That's a bit more difficult, and the effects of each further step seems to open more questions.

Posted by MutantMandias There are both "law of gravity" and "theory of gravity." The LAW of gravity expresses an observable truth about the practical effects of what we call gravity. Newton established equations that (mostly) reliably predicted experience. It was a LAW, even though it wasn't exactly right.

Newton's Laws, while still used for simple gravitational math, aren't very useful when it comes to galaxies and quantum gravity.

http://en.wikipedi...pothetical_planet)

Evolution is more than "pretty robust." It's understood better than gravity.

I call that understatement where I come from sir.

I don't think science tries to do away with the subjective; it's just that subjective judgements have no place in scientific inquiry. Subjectivity is more suited to the arts.

In this case the end is the result of what ever the means are. Science does do away with the subjective, what ever the reasons for doing so. Religion on the other hand takes the subjective experiences of the practitioner, patriarch or priest and turns them into an objective truth. Absolute Objective truth does not exist however, or the world would still be flat. Truth, even in science, is malleable.

My religion is alchemy, my practice is art.

Posted by earthworm In this case the end is the result of what ever the means are. Science does do away with the subjective, what ever the reasons for doing so. Religion on the other hand takes the subjective experiences of the practitioner, primarch or priest and turns them into an objective truth. Absolute Objective truth does not exist however, or the world would still be flat. Truth, even in science, is malleable. My religion is alchemy, my practice is art.

Semantics.

Example: Is Megan Fox attractive? That's a subjective question. You could say "Well, obviously! Look at her!" but some might not find her attractive. If you're a chubby chaser, you might say she's too skinny and does nothing for you. Science can't answer that question, but it doesn't mean science couldn't make some sense of it. You could take a poll, and find that 90 percent of American men polled find her attractive. Then, scientifically, it would be accurate to say she is attractive, because the empirical evidence supports it.

Posted by splumer Semantics. Example: Is Megan Fox attractive? That's a subjective question. You could say "Well, obviously! Look at her!" but some might not find her attractive. If you're a chubby chaser, you might say she's too skinny and does nothing for you. Science can't answer that question, but it doesn't mean science couldn't make some sense of it. You could take a poll, and find that 90 percent of American men polled find her attractive. Then, scientifically, it would be accurate to say she is attractive, because the empirical evidence supports it.

Aside from the fact that you still wouldn't be defining what attractiveness actually is, I think you're also missing my point.

Example: God spoke to me alone, he gave me some moral laws. These are gods laws, god is omnipotent, and thereby these are moral absolutes.

would that compute with science? Lets try!

Example: only I observed my experiment, it can not be replicated, it gave me some results. These are the results of a perfectly constructed experiment and thereby the results are a Law of science. What do you mean you want peer review?

Posted by earthworm In this case the end is the result of what ever the means are. Science does do away with the subjective, what ever the reasons for doing so. Religion on the other hand takes the subjective experiences of the practitioner, primarch or priest and turns them into an objective truth. Absolute Objective truth does not exist however, or the world would still be flat. Truth, even in science, is malleable.

There is no "completely objective" just as there is no absolute truth. Example, Light being both a particle and a wave depending on how you look at it. The observer influences the observed.

Those who believe in an absolute truth block themselves from knowing more, be it in the sciences or in religion.

Posted by dirt There is no "completely objective"

given, but it is strived for with the scientific method. Otherwise we are back to alchemy.