Intelligent Design

Trouble in Paradise? Coyne Attacks NCSE and BCSE

Spread the love

Trouble in Paradise? Coyne Attacks NCSE and BCSE on his Science Blog – Phrayngula

Coyne has launched a response to the NCSE and BCSE – it comes after some complaints from the ‘otherside’ about the indifference of Coyne and Dawkins to the efforts of the BCSE and NCSE who feel they do all the work, and Dawkins and co just rake in the dosh. I will refrain from gloating.

7 Replies to “Trouble in Paradise? Coyne Attacks NCSE and BCSE

  1. 1
    Sonfaro says:

    I read through some of the responses. I’d laugh if it wasn’t so sad.

    – Sonfaro

  2. 2
    Charles says:

    Posted by: PZ Myers | April 24, 2011 1:00 PM

    What we want is for a sci education organization that actually is a secular group — not one that says it is, but effectively peddles liberal Christianity. That’s all. … What we want is an NCSE that no more endorses your position than mine.

    Provided “secular” does not mean “atheist”, for once I agree with PZ. I’d like nothing more than to see science education naked, standing alone on nothing more than the evidence, propped up by neither atheist just-so stories, nor theistic evolution.

    Just teach the demonstrable evidence, experimental methods, and critical/analytical thinking, and let scientists and theologians debate in their respective venues, ’cause the average biology teacher can’t competently address all the applicable theology and scientific findings, even if they had the time, latitude, and student attention span.

  3. 3
    nullasalus says:

    Provided “secular” does not mean “atheist”,

    Well, that’s the problem – it seems to mean exactly that for PZ.

    I wonder when he got it into his head that no secular source can ever have anything positive to say about religion, even in a purely factual sense. Is it a violation of secularism to, say… perform research on whether religious individuals perform act X or Y well? Is it a violation only if the research suggests “yes, they do well, in fact they do better than many non-religious”?

  4. 4
    Charles says:

    nullasalus:
    I wonder when he got it into his head that no secular source can ever have anything positive to say about religion, even in a purely factual sense.

    I would be satisfied were he simply to grant that a source can be treated as “secular” in a classroom context provided *nothing* was said about religion or areligion. If that source speaks their mind in other forums, fine, so long as their classroom conduct is strictly on the facts and merits of the subject matter.

    They should not be expelled/blackballed for either theistic or atheistic views, provided their teaching in the classroom genuinely advocates neither. Likewise for “pal review” of papers.

    I’d like to see teaching, research, and publication done on their merits and not political correctness of ideology, anyone’s.

  5. 5
  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    fbeckwith, LOL!

  7. 7
    Joseph says:

    PZ Myers:

    The organization has such a finely tuned political sense and diplomatic strategy to promote science to the whole of the United States, and have managed to profoundly alienate that segment of our society that is most dedicated to promoting science.

    That from a person whose position is untestable, ie unscientific.

Leave a Reply