Point-Counterpoint: Steven Weinberg vs. Eugenie Scott

I like the non-Eugenian approach much more. At least the direct guy lets us all know that he wishes to put limits on the free marketplace of ideas, which I think would never be supported because too many people are familiar with history. nemesis

Ha! angryoldfatman, I'm gonna have that tune in my head all day. "You are a pirate!" Here's one in the spirit of pirate humor. A pretty funny SNL skit with Peter Saarrrsgaaarrrrd. Apollos

LOL Apollos! I've been watching this video too much today with my youngest son. It's a very catchy tune. angryoldfatman

YARR! SHIVER ME TIMBERS!

Do you know what a pro-ID pirate's favorite pastime is? ... ARRRguing with DARRRwinists. Apollos

Brandon, There is an automated filter on UD due to the high volume of nasty comments that Darwinists attempt to post. If you desire to discuss a new topic feel free to continue to contribute. Patrick

I came back to see if I needed to defend my statements, and I see you guys have everything under control. Thanks! Apollos spied the outcome-based education angle; DaveScot fired off a thundering broadside with the "hedonism vs. three R's" curricula problem and followed up with a flurry of chain-shot statistics; and Patrick and Borne carved the usual pedantry and mindless talking points to ribbons with their razor sharp logic cutlasses. YARR! SHIVER ME TIMBERS! angryoldfatman

Wow, ok my posts are getting left off, individuals would rather snipe than talk and there is a serious narrowing of vision going on here with you people. I am going to return to keeping an eye on you rather than attepmting to hold a conversation. Brandon

I’m sorry that I bore you by stating something that has been stated elsewhere, but it is really something that needs repeated until you understand it. It’s inaccurate to use Darwinism and evolution interchangeably, at best it reveals a poor understanding of the subject.

I referenced the World Summit for a reason; try running a search first before responding. Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism are often used interchangeably but the standalone "Darwinism" is used to encapsulate all forms of modern ideas and "Darwinist" as a supporter of the general idea. There can be a difference in opinion, of course. I'm sure there are people out there who dislike the way the terms are now being used. See this quote from Lynn Margulis for an example of how these terms are used: "It was like confessing a murder when I discovered I was not a neo-Darwinist. I am definitely a Darwinist though. I think we are missing important information about the origins of variation. I differ from the neo-Darwinian bullies on this point." She's using Neo-Darwinist to refer to a specific camp supporting a particular idea in the Darwinist group. Obviously, she's not using Darwinist as in reference to Charles Darwin's original ideas...she's referring to herself as a supporter of the common idea. But if you're not familiar with the terminology her statement would be confusing. Then ID proponents will often use the acronym NDE, which stands for Non-Darwinian Evolution. Then there is IE (Intelligent Evolution) and IDE(Intelligently Designed Evolution). Please try to keep up with the times. It's annoying having to correct a Darwinist who doesn't even know the terminology that is being used by the Darwinist experts. It's even more annoying when that Darwinist tries to chide me due to his own ignorance. Patrick

Further on international test comparisons in general and TIMSS vs. PISA in particular: In many countries many children don't attend school at all (up to 50%) and even more don't advance as far as the 9th grade. In the U.S. close to 100% make it through the 9th grade. So in some countries the sample base excluded an awful lot of the least educated. Most of the following from this site: PISA is more weighted in highly industrialized countries. TIMSS allows no calculators. PISA allows calculators at the discretion of each country's test administrators. PISA uses 67% constructed answers while TIMSS uses 35%. Constructed answers are those that aren't multiple choice. PISA allows partial credit in constructed answers at the discretion of the person grading the exam if work is shown while TIMSS does not grant partial credit. TIMSS places more emphasis on statistics while PISA places more emphasis on geometry. U.S. students excel at statistics and underperform on geometry. The U.S. spends 50% less time teaching geometry than most other countries and 50% more time on statistics. This might explain why chance evolution is more widely rejected in the U.S. as chance & necessity evolution has everything to do with statistics and nothing to do with geometry. Samo samo for global warming! Notably missing in the AIR analysis is the disparity in difficulty. The PISA test is so difficult it can't measure well below average students because they will score 0%. This is a huge flaw in PISA. DaveScot

I was interested in why the PISA math results are so different from TIMSS results. The PISA test is newer with fewer participating countries by the way. By looking at sample questions from each I discovered part of the answer. The PISA questions are much more difficult than TIMSS. The international average rate of correct answers to the sample questions on PISA is 34% while the U.S. rate is 25%. This test isn't a measure of math literacy but rather a measure of students who are exceptional in math. Whoever forumlated the PISA test is an educational moron. Any teacher I can imagine should know that when the average test score is 34% the test was far too difficult and if the average score is 95% it was far too easy. The average score of a well constructed test should be about 75%. Like duh! TIMMS math test on the other hand has an average international score of 52%. Clearly a better designed test but still empirically a bit too difficult. The fact that the TIMSS test is still too difficult is cause for alarm (check out how easy the questions are) but the U.S. average score was 64% so it's much closer to a valid test for a broad range U.S. 9th grade students and certainly better for a broad range of all participants as compared to PISA. Still the disparity in results is perplexing. I smell a rat. TIMSS has 79 particpating nations vs. 41 for PISA and has been conducted 4 times beginning in 1995 vs. 2 times for PISA beginning in 2000. Given wider participation over a longer period of time plus a better designed test I'd be inclined to assign more credibility to TIMSS. DaveScot

Agreed. For me, science strengthens my belief in Christ and the Bible more than ever before. Robo

Brandon wrote: "Eugenie Scott...is not attempting to decieve anyone or working to promote some secret atheist agenda, her aim is to set a high standard for science education. Period." That's a pretty bold statement. Other than reading what she has written, do you know this person? A person's motives are notoriously difficult to gauge. You might recall that a number of very intelligent people defended Hitler's actions prior to the outbreak of WWII. In the book "The End of Glory", about the causes of WWII, a number of people are on record as stating that Hitler was "reasonable", that he would stop after the annexation of Austria. While I am not equating Scott with Hitler, clearly, in retrospect, a number of highly placed people misjudged Hitler's motives. Brandon wrote: "Her above comments were directed to a group of people who are poorly educated, confused and superstitious". How do you know this? Brandon wrote: "The pointless character assassination of an educator here is very troubling to me". When you assert that a group of people is "poorly educated" (they are dumb), "confused" (they have no understanding of the issues), and "superstitious" (believes in the tooth fairy), you don't consider that a type of character assassination? What exactly would you call it? I would certainly be offended if you refered to me in this manner. One can only imagine if Pat Robertson said, "...well, you know those atheist and evolutionists, they are evil, misguided and thoroughly confused...". I think we should just stick to what people say and do, and not guess their "motives" (a hazardous adventure at best). gleaner63

Brandon: HERE is where the Darwin worshipers you admire so much used the term "unwashed masses" in reference to the general public. They should have said - “un-brain-washed masses”. They have since removed the term. Check Google's cached pages and you might still find their original 'declaration'. "...improve education standards in the United States. Dr. Scott is one of the people working for that goal. " You didn't understand a thing I said and you obviously don't want to. "A quality science education requires basic and properly taught knowledge of evolution, which is something that we have never before had here." "never had"?...You're kidding right? That's all there is in public school bio clases, in all the books, on every TV science show, in all the sci-fi shows and movies and all the major sci magazines. You are living in a very sorry state of both willful ignorance denial of reality. "I applaud the efforts of the “National Center for Shoddy Education” as you call it." Keep on applauding the NCSE Darwinism propaganda engine all you please. You have been duped. And you seem to enjoy it. The NCSE has nothing to do with true education. And Scott is a wolf in sheep's clothing. And you have been easy prey. Your defense of her public smear campaign against Dr. Sternberg is sickening. Your response on Gonzalez is escapism and willful ignorance of fact. Shame on you! :-( Borne

Brandon The reason the U.S. scores aren't higher in math is the fault of teachers and administrators. Put some more liberals in there who are more concerned about Johnny and Jeanie having access to condoms and knowing what they're for than they are with them having access to trig tables and knowing what those are for. Put more liberals in charge so all answers are correct answers in order that we don't bruise any fragile egos by telling them they're wrong or failing to perform to expectations. Put more liberals in charge so we give more kids social promotions instead of risking making them feel bad by having to repeat a grade. This deplorable situation would never have been tolerated in the cold war era. You reap what you sow. Sow the seeds of universal tolerance in public education and you reap stupid complacent students. No surprise there. Of course it's not like that in all American schools. The public schools where my kids went are all nationally acclaimed Blue Ribbon schools year after year. Westwood High School ranked #88 in the nation in 2007. This google map shows the location and rank of each. By the looks of it we ought to appoint Jeb Bush education czar for the entire U.S. as Florida contains 22 of the top 100 high schools. George Bush is no slacker when it comes to education either as Texas has 13 of the top 100 (including the top 2), New York 13, and California an abysmal 7. By population California should have twice as many as Florida while Texas and New York should be close to tied. I have no idea who came up with the ratings numbers you referenced but here's the raw data from the source and it's the polar opposite of your statement We have one of the lowest rates of math literacy in the developed world. In fact we are among the highest. Not that that's acceptable - nothing below #1 is acceptable. But it isn't near as dire as you claim and the situation has improved substantially since George W. Bush became president. In 2003 (the last year with a completed survey) the U.S. ranked 9th in the world in science literacy amongst 8th grade students far exceeding the international average. In math literacy the U.S. ranked #15 again far exceeding the international average. Fourth grade U.S. students ranked higher in both categories than 8th graders. Not a single western European nation beat the U.S. in science or math except the Netherlands which was ranked just ahead of the U.S. However, I note that many western European nations didn't participate in the testing. Moreover U.S. scores have improved substantially since George W. Bush was elected president. Math scores up 12 points and science scores up 15 points. Good job, W. I don't expect the facts will alter your belief that the U.S. education performs so poorly on an international scale but maybe you'll surprise me and distinguish yourself as different from the rest of the Darwin worshippers by letting facts influence your beliefs. DaveScot

Brandon, here you go. The numbers and link are in the first link I posted. You said:

Just because a subject is difficult and the scientists involved with it disagree on points does not make it too difficult to teach to children. There are some magnificent concepts in modern evolution that would be quite easy to teach and are interesting as well.

This may be true, but for quite a long stretch untruths have been perpetuated in the name of evolution education, such as Haeckel's embryos, the Miller-Urey experiment, peppered moths, homology, and transitional forms like Archaeopteryx, etc. It's hard to imagine there a host of magnificent concepts are waiting in the wings to pass on to school children, when the examples we see are largely artist concepts (fish to man images) combined with outdated and long debunked icons. I would however be interested in empirical evidences appropriate for teaching school-age children if you want to post some.

Also, I don’t think that you are correct in stating “It’s not like the school system produces students who reject algebra, gravity, or a round earth.” We have one of the lowest rates of math literacy in the developed world (here, here or here), the fact of gravity is told to students rather than the theory of gravity being taught and the earth is not, strictly speaking, round.

Yes but it is certainly not flat; you can substitute "roundish." I think there is a big difference between educational deficiencies and rejection of empirical concepts. I was careful to note that the students don't reject algebra, like many do evolution. The fact that they aren't proficient in algebra further bolsters my point. Kids just out of high school don't reject algebra or gravity, even though (like with evolution) they don't necessarily have proficiency in the subjects. Many reject NDE. I believe this is due, in part, to the fact that the notion is utterly irrational. The efforts to peddle NDE as hard science has not been entirely successful. This isn't due to educational deficiencies, it is due to the fact that the notion of NDE has yet to be empirically proven, regardless of the amount of hand waving, just so stories, and invective hurling its materialist proponents are wont to do. Best regards. Apollos

Apollos: I would have posted a response sooner, but I needed to read the articles you included in your post. Also, I would appreciate it if you could post a source for your percent of college graduates that believe in special creation. Now I disagree with your statement that "It is hardly possible to make evolutionary claims clear to students when evolutionary biologists don’t even understand it." Just because a subject is difficult and the scientists involved with it disagree on points does not make it too difficult to teach to children. There are some magnificent concepts in modern evolution that would be quite easy to teach and are interesting as well. Also, I don't think that you are correct in stating "It’s not like the school system produces students who reject algebra, gravity, or a round earth." We have one of the lowest rates of math literacy in the developed world (here, here or here), the fact of gravity is told to students rather than the theory of gravity being taught and the earth is not, strictly speaking, round. The whole of what children are getting in school is lousy. Telling children to memorize that the rate of acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 meters per second per second or to remember that the earth is round is not a education, it's preparation for a bad trivia program. Evolution is as poorly taught as the rest. There is a lot more to teach there than the uninteresting, hollow shell that is currently being taught. I do agree that it's a problem that needs to be addressed in "academia" but I don't think I agree in the same sense you you mean it. Patrick: I'm sorry that I bore you by stating something that has been stated elsewhere, but it is really something that needs repeated until you understand it. It's inaccurate to use Darwinism and evolution interchangeably, at best it reveals a poor understanding of the subject. Brandon

Also, this Darwinism of which you speak is not what I am talking about when I advocate the quality teaching of evolution. That term was pretty tired and inaccurate at the time your parents were learning “all about” evolution.

Uh, oh...cue tired old arguments. Please try searching the backlog of UD before you comment here. It's annoying when we get newcomers like you that rehash old arguments. Darwinism and Darwinist was even used to refer to modern supporters of "whatever you want to call it" at the World Summit on Evolution with nary an ID proponent in sight. Next thing you know there'll be arguments about nylonase, the definition of information, etc... Patrick

Brandon said:

I understand that evolution has been included in science classes, but I would hardly say that it has been taught well here in the US.

Although I would agree with you about the poor quality of evolution education in the public school system, I think you are conflating evolutionary instructional quality with the results. It is hardly possible to make evolutionary claims clear to students when evolutionary bioligists don't even understand it. With belief in special creation at 34% among college graduates, accusations of poor education must be squarely placed upon academia, not sloughed off on grade school; or possibly the problem lies elsewhere. It's not like the school system produces students who reject algebra, gravity, or a round earth. This makes evolutionary theory itself suspect when considering, "what is the reason so many reject neo-Darwinian evolution?" Perhaps we can consider that this might be due to the fact that the proponents of modern evolutionary theory make impossible claims: that neo-Darwinian processes can account not only for the diversity of life, but somehow its origins. We are asked to believe that something can come from nothing, and that it can "evolve" mind-boggling complexity with nothing more than mindless processes. Everything we know about the world around us tells us otherwise. Apollos

angryoldfatman: I understand that evolution has been included in science classes, but I would hardly say that it has been taught well here in the US. Also, this Darwinism of which you speak is not what I am talking about when I advocate the quality teaching of evolution. That term was pretty tired and inaccurate at the time your parents were learning "all about" evolution. Brandon

Brandon wrote: A quality science education requires basic and properly taught knowledge of evolution, which is something that we have never before had here. Where's "here"? In the America I grew up in, we were taught all about Darwin and evolution in public shools. So were my parents. I'm 40, they're in their 60s. For the past forty years all American public schools have been restricted to teaching only Darwinian evolution in regards to biological origins and diversity. It would seem that some people want a Scientistic Inquisition to hold white-hot tongs to the highschoolers' tender flesh and make them confess that Darwinism is the only true Science. They would settle for nothing less. angryoldfatman

Borne: I really didn't see any need for my comments to be translated into a straw man. I understand the antiquated associations that you are attempting to evoke using the term "unwashed masses" and I really hope that your understanding of evolution is more sophisticated than that. I followed the events around Dr. Richard Sternberg quite closely as well as the saga surrounding Dr. Gonzalez. From your comments and the way you choose to use those events I get the impression that you are unfamiliar with the processes of tenure and publication. Dr. Sternberg did get quite a bit of negative attention, much more than he deserved, but lets remember he did choose to breach the usual protocols of pre-publication review procedures - in a single case - which is not an action that should simply be swept aside. There are numerous accounts posted about Dr. Gonzalez, the situation is far from simple and we need not discuss that issue further. The point I want to make is that we need do everything we can to improve education standards in the United States. Dr. Scott is one of the people working for that goal. A quality science education requires basic and properly taught knowledge of evolution, which is something that we have never before had here. I applaud the efforts of the "National Center for Shoddy Education" as you call it. Brandon

bornagain77: "Contrary to what Weinberg thinks, I think scientists are doing a mighty fine job of strengthening my faith in God!" A great post. I might only point out that though these factors that you enumerated can strengthen faith, they do not ultimately provide proof, just an argument from preponderance of evidence. Another line of reasoning based on circumstantial evidence also supports the conclusion that there appears to be a supremely intelligent and powerful creative Source. This is the strange correlation between many mystical experiences including NDEs and at least the broad outlines of these teachings. Mystical experiences are ultimately beyond human words and understanding and most features are incapable of independent verification, but some are and have been verified. There is much objective circumstantial evidence that the human mind/personality is ultimately independent of the physical brain, invalidating materialism. Therefore that many such experiences seem strangely congruent with spiritual teachings should be taken as a likely clue to the truth. Logic and reason for all its essentialness in physical life can't answer the ultimate questions. In the absence of faith, a sort of "cognitive dissonance" is inherent in life. Reason and logic cannot arrive at absolute certainty. Unlike a felony trial in a court of law (but more like civil litigation), we have to accept that judgement on an issue when restricted to physical evidence has to be based on the preponderance of evidence, not on there being absolutely no "reasonable doubt". The atheistic/materialist side would point out that rather than an uncreated Creator it is logically no more unreasonable to propose that there never was a beginning or a Creator, there is no reason to wonder why there is something rather than nothing, and that all the apparent evidence of intelligent design and purpose in the universe is just the pathetic fallacy of humans in regarding what is actually the result of random chance and enough time. However, such a conclusion doesn't seem reasonable to me. Everyone has to decide on this hopefully based at least on consideration of the preponderance of circumstantial evidence. This all has little to say about the actual nature of God as a personal sentient Creator or an impersonal Source. It says nothing about the ancient theological problem of suffering and evil. Here it requires a lot of convoluted philosophical rationalizing to conform to Christian and other theistic teachings about the relationship between God and man. I know - off topic and probably another blog. magnan

She, in reality, is probably a left-over KGB sleeper cell.

LOL! The NCSE pretty much admitted elements of the former Soviet Union are trying to re-establish contact with the sleeper cell known as the NCSE. I posted on the fact Russians contacted the NCSE to fight off creationists in the former soviet union: Is Russia ready for ID?

An NCSE emissary by the name of Barbara Forrest was sent to try to stem the tide of creationists in Russia..... A report of her mission and a distress call is here Help Counter Creationism in Russia NCSE member Barbara Forrest, who recently attended a conference in St. Petersburg, reports that Russian scientists desperately need resources to stem the rising tide of creationism in their country.

Do you see the irony in all of this? The Darwinists in Russia are looking to the leaders of materialist intellectual totalitarianism in America for help. scordova

Way to go Borne 22! Very well said. Rude

Analyysi: "Instead, the wide majority, 72 percent, of the respondents chose option B. These eminent evolutionists view religion as a sociobiological feature of human culture, a part of human evolution, not as a contradiction to evolution. Viewing religion as an evolved sociobiological feature removes all competition between evolution and religion for most respondents." These evolutionary biologists blind themselves to the obvious fact that option B is really the same as C. The clear implication of B is that religion (and supposedly all notions of God and spirit) are nothing more than the product of evolution. This clearly totally conflicts with the claims of these same religious teachings about the nature of reality. Since C also says "...they (religion and Darwinism) are mutually exclusive magisteria whose tenets indicate mutually exclusive conclusions", option B is really the same as C. Many evolutionists may subscribe to B because it seems on the surface less confrontative and more comfortable to non fanatic ideologues. They must assume the religiously inclined are so deluded by their memed fantasies that they don't notice this obfuscation. magnan

Brandon: "Her above comments were directed to a group of people that are poorly educated, confused and superstitious. She is of course going to try to calm their fears." Surely you jest!? Let me translate your terms for you in Darwinist jargon: 1. poorly educated = still believe in creation by an intelligent designer 2. confused and superstitious = religion practising "unwashed masses" "The pointless character assassination ..." Do you mean character assassination as per what she and her NCSE cohorts did to Richard Sternberg?? Or are you completely ignorant of that? If so Check here and Here "...of an educator here is very troubling to me." Q: Were you troubled by the ISU's decision to refuse tenure to scientist Guillmero Gonzalez simply because he supports ID (though has never taught or spoken on it in class)?! "...lessen the quality of education and pick apart any person trying to do something about it." Would to God that you were as troubled by what Scott et al. are really all about; i.e. Stifling the truth about Darwinism and their true motives for steamrolling that doctrine onto the public mind, censoring anyone who has anything to say against it, witch hunting ID scientists like dogs and using terrorist tactics to get their opponents silenced. Sorry but your comment is troubling to me. I live in a country where you can criticize the government but not Darwin. Where Darwinist 'scientists' take their materialist cause to court to get their view instated as law and to outlaw any comment or teaching contrary to their view. Scott is one of the worst. Get up to date boy and take off your darkened NCSE biased lenses. ...please Borne

I do believe, deep down, Scott generally likes people and children. But her sweetness makes here a more formidable foe to ID.

I fear she has seduced you, Sal. That was not sweet what she did to Richard Sternberg. And she made it worse by implying afterward that he was a wussy for complaining. russ

"Brainwashing techniques are right up her alley. She, in reality, is probably a left-over KGB sleeper cell." LOL...no doubt. Forthekids

Scott is a very shady character and clearly a hypocrite. This is so evident when you compare differing statements to varying audiences. Brainwashing techniques are right up her alley. She, in reality, is probably a left-over KGB sleeper cell. Borne

oops sorry guys - I hadn't notice the analogy was already used. NCSE - National Center for Steamrolling Evolution or NCSE - National Center for Stifling Evidence or - National Center for Shoddy Education take your pick - they're all true Borne

I have been watching this site for a month now. I had not planned on commenting at any point, but this thread has become absurd and I feel that I need to say something. Eugenie Scott at the National Center for Science Education is an intelligent and dedicated scientist working to promote basic science education. She is not attempting to deceive anyone or working to promote some secret atheist agenda, her aim is setting a high standard for science education. Period. Her above comments were directed to a group of people that are poorly educated, confused and superstitious. She is of course going to try to calm their fears. The pointless character assassination of an educator here is very troubling to me. It's troubling to see that I am living in a country with a very vocal minority that works hard to lessen the quality of education and pick apart any person trying to do something about it. Brandon

Scott & Weinberg = good cop/bad cop in the Darwinian police force. Borne

LOL jb, that's exactly what I typed a couple of times before I settled on the poison analogy. Good cop/bad cop is definitely how these guys work. Now if we could "lawyer up" somehow... angryoldfatman

Steven Weinberg is the nightmare for evolutionists. What he is saying is what unguided-evolutionists are thinking, but don't want to express it out loud (not just yet, anyway). People who are skeptical of unguided evolutionism "love" people like Weinberg bkz he is very open about the purposes of what today is called "science". Mats

I'd rather deal with Weinburg than Scott any day. At least with Weinburg what you see is what you get. I trust Scott about as far as I can throw her. Anyone who makes a statement like... "I have found that the most effective allies for evolution are people of the faith community. One clergyman with a backward collar is worth two biologists at a school board meeting any day!" ...sounds a little underhanded to me. She certainly believes, like Weinburg, that science (and society in general) would be far better off without religious thought. Once she gets the churches to swallow her views in regard to "science", it's a very small step to lead them on to a materialist worldview. Forthekids

Yes, I’d take Steven Weinberg’s cold straightforwardness over Eugenie Scott’s warm deceptiveness any day. People aren’t incorrigible—they’re just deceived—and therefore it is the truth that sets men free. The evil one cannot just walk up and level a gun at your head—but he might deceive your neighbor into doing just that. It is not the tanks and guns of the despot that enslave, but the deceived minions who carry out the despot’s orders and those who acquiesce to his delusions. Therefore let us be glad for those who clarify issues, even those on the wrong side whose positions and goals are transparent, and let us eschew those who intensify the prevailing fog. Is this a loaded question? Well if it presumes that clarity is good and obfuscation is not good—then it’s asking the obvious which may not be so obvious when feel good con artists have the floor. Rude

angryoldfatman @4: "The radicalism of Weinberg, Dawkins, et al, provides the antithesis for Eugenie Scott’s Hegelian synthesis. It’s easier to sell a slightly poisonous product after offering a lethally poisonous one first." In other words, "Good Cop/Bad Cop" jb

"Students don’t have to accept evolution," Scott frequently has said. "But they should learn it — as it is understood by scientists."" How evolution is understood by evolutionary scientists? From Gregory W. Graffin & William B. Provine: How Evolution and Religion Relate Evolutionists were presented with four choices on the relation between evolution and religion: A, they are non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) whose tenets are not in conflict; B, religion is a social phenomenon that has developed with the biological evolution of Homo sapiens—therefore religion should be considered as a part of our biological heritage, and its tenets should be seen as a labile social adaptation, subject to change and reinterpretation; C, they are mutually exclusive magisteria whose tenets indicate mutually exclusive conclusions; or D, they are totally harmonious—evolution is one of many ways to elucidate the evidences of God's designs. Only 8 percent of the respondents chose answer A, the NOMA principle advocated by Stephen Jay Gould, rejecting the harmonious view of evolution and religion as separate magisteria. Even fewer (3 percent) believe that evolution and religion are "totally harmonious," answer D. A weak response to both of these options is unsurprising since the participants are so strongly nonreligious, shown by their answers to other questions in the poll. But we did expect a strong showing for choice C, which suggests that evolution and religion are mutually exclusive and separated by a gulf that cannot be bridged. This was the answer chosen by Richard Dawkins, who has a strong reputation for declaring that science has much better answers for human society than does religion. Instead, the wide majority, 72 percent, of the respondents chose option B. These eminent evolutionists view religion as a sociobiological feature of human culture, a part of human evolution, not as a contradiction to evolution. Viewing religion as an evolved sociobiological feature removes all competition between evolution and religion for most respondents. Evolutionary scientists are strongly motivated to ameliorate conflict between evolution and religion. Sociobiology offers them an apparent conciliatory path to the compatibility of religion and evolution, avoiding all language of inescapable conflict. Sociobiological evolution is the means to understanding religion, whereas religion as a "way of knowing" has nothing to teach us about evolution. This view allows a place for religion and sounds superficially comforting to compatibilists. Analyysi

I would prefer the ID movement have enemies like Weinberg as he is easier to defeat.

I couldn't agree more. PS Berlinski is brilliant. IDist

In answer to Bill's question, "Whom do you prefer", I would prefer the ID movement have enemies like Weinberg as he is easier to defeat. I like Scott as a person more than Weinberg. I do believe, deep down, Scott generally likes people and children. But her sweetness makes here a more formidable foe to ID. Berlinski describes Scott as a "harmless" little squirrel. She is simultaneously the more dangerous enemy to ID because she is so sweet. Sugar coated poison, in other words.... However, the best one for the Darwinian sales pitch is Ken Miller. I doubt few in the ID movement could defeat Miller's theatrical magic in live debate. Miller can be defeated in a protracted serious debate focusing on the facts. But that would bore all (except the most interested) to tears. He'll avoid such venues for obvious reasons. PS I suppose, with a little practice, Berlinski could make quick work of Miller. Berlinski and Wilder-Smith debated Dawkins, and knocked Dawkins out of the debate circuit 20 years ago. scordova

I find Scotts approach pretty disingenuous. I will never trust words out of the mouth of an atheist who vociferously promoted evolution and then claims there is no conflict between religion and evolution. Of course, Scott probably sees no conflict because she thinks there is no conflict between reality as she sees it and fairy tales as she sees it. Such an approach is manifestly dishonest, but who expects better from atheists ;) Jason Rennie

In her earnest, soft-spoken voice, she tried to explain to parents and teachers [in Kansas] that science and evolution are not anti-religion.

Of course, modern science is not anti-religion. It is supplying increasingly obvious evidence on all fronts that design is screaming at us. One needs a really effective set of earplugs not to hear it. "Evolution," as understood by Scott (she obviously subscribes to the blind-watchmaker thesis), is clearly "anti-religion," unless one understands religion to be the idea that all of life and existence is ultimately unplanned, pointless, and purposeless. Eugenie is trying to sell a lie to a populace that has enough common sense to detect philosophical snake oil when they smell it. It's a tough job, but someone has to do it. As for Weinberg, he is an extremely brilliant fool. History is full of them. But at least he's honest about his agenda. GilDodgen

Great post, bornagain77. I've seen you post along those lines before, but I agree - science strengthens my own faith. As for the preference between either, as others have said, I'll take neither. Scientists will do a good thing in ridding the world of religion? But what's 'religion'? Apparently, the great atheist or non-theist terror regimes of the past century were somehow religious. Is Weinberg advocating turning the intellectual guns against atheist cults of exclusion, superiority, and idol-worship? If so, the Brights may want to duck. As for Scott, I have no trouble with evolution being taught in a public school. But 'as understood by scientists' needs to be better defined; should it be taught in the way Weinberg views evolution? Dawkins? How about Freeman Dyson, or John Polkinghorne? All men of science, but how they 'understand' evolution differs in some rather drastic ways. More to the point - can Eugenie Scott cope with a curriculum where evolution is taught, but belief in an intelligence operating behind and perhaps even through life is merely considered permissible and reasonable? I don't presuppose her answer, but I can guess how others will react. nullasalus

Eugenie's fuzzy-headed nothingness seems to be the approach of choice. It's the Gramscian "long march", which has been proven time and time again to be much more effective than the revolutionary (i.e. "pure" Marxist) approach. The radicalism of Weinberg, Dawkins, et al, provides the antithesis for Eugenie Scott's Hegelian synthesis. It's easier to sell a slightly poisonous product after offering a lethally poisonous one first. angryoldfatman

If you replaced the word scientists, in Weinberg's statement, with the word materialist, then his sentence would be logically true. I find science, contrary to Weinberg's belief, to be deeply edifying to my faith in God. For instance these predictions: 1. Materialism did not predict the big bang, Yet Theism always said the universe was created. 2. Materialism did not predict a sub-atomic (quantum) world that blatantly defies our concepts of time and space, Yet Theism always said the universe is the craftsmanship of God who is not limited by time or space. 3. Materialism did not predict the fact that time, as we understand it, comes to a complete stop at the speed of light, as revealed by Einstein's special theory of relativity, Yet Theism always said that God exists in a timeless eternity. 4. Materialism did not predict the stunning precision for the underlying universal constants for the universe, found in the Anthropic Principle, Yet Theism always said God laid the foundation of the universe, so the stunning clockwork precision found for the various universal constants is not at all unexpected for Theism. 5 Materialism predicted that complex life in this universe should be fairly common, Yet statistical analysis of the many required parameters that enable complex life to be possible on earth reveals that the earth is extremely unique in its ability to support life in this universe. Theism would have expected the earth to be extremely unique in this universe. 6. Materialism did not predict the fact that the DNA code is, according to Bill Gates, far, far more advanced than any computer code ever written by man, Yet Theism would have naturally expected this level of complexity in the DNA code. 7. Materialism presumed a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA, which is not the case at all. Yet Theism would have naturally presumed such a high if not, what most likely is, complete negative mutation rate to an organism’s DNA. 8. Materialism presumed a very simple first life form. Yet the simplest life ever found on Earth is, according to Geneticist Michael Denton PhD., far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. Theism would have naturally expected this. 9. Materialism predicted that it took a very long time for life to develop on earth, Yet we find evidence for photo-synthetic life in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth (Sarah Simpson, Scientific American, 2003). Theism would have expected this sudden appearance of life on earth. 10. Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life to be self-evident in the fossil record, The Cambrian Explosion, by itself, destroys this myth. Theism would have expected such sudden appearance of the many different and completely unique fossils in the Cambrian explosion. Contrary to what Weinberg thinks, I think scientists are doing a mighty fine job of strengthening my faith in God! bornagain77

I love Weinberg's comments. They're the truth as atheists sees it, while Scott's is simply and unashamedly an attempt to sell evolution to the masses. Plus I simply don't believe she really believes "students don't have to accept evolution." jpark320

steven's comments are so simplistic that i think they will be quickly adopted by those who don't think too deeply but have knee-jerk reactions against religion. eugenie's are just slowly corrosive. it depends if you want religion (specifically monotheism) to be lit ablaze like arson, or to just melt like butter on a warm day. the former would end in persecution, the latter in fuzzy-headed nothingness. rswood