How Disappointing
by MikeGeneJerry Coyne gave a presentation on Creationism and ID at The Rockefeller University on May 1. You can watch the video here.
What's troubling about the presentation is the last 5 minutes or so, where Coyne focuses on religion and basically sides with Dawkins, Hitchens, and the New Atheist movement. He propagates the war between religion and science viewpoint and argues that we need to "get rid of religion." He plugs the books by Dawkins and Hitchens. He argues that we need to more publicly express the opinion that religion is the enemy of science. And then he turns to the NCSE position and says, "At least do not pretend that religion and science are alternative and compatible ways of looking at the world." He claims the National Academy of Science's recent statement is "soft-pedaling the dichotomy" and describes Gould's NOMA as "hogwash." He even contrasts religion and science by peddling the stereotype that religious people "blow each other up" while scientists behave in a civilized manner.
Coyne really should stick to genetics and evolution.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Something is being felt, but what is expressed is not articulated clearly. As I have been saying, what apparently goes missing in an intuitionist logic.
Comment by Stephen — May 29, 2008 @ 12:01 pm
May 29th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
The Jerry Coynes of the world do more damage to science in general and advocacy for mainstream evolution in particular than the DI ever could. He purposely aligns what, theoretically should be an objective search for empirical data, with a cause that is quintessentially metaphysical. Nice artillary barrage from a culture warrior.
Comment by Bradford — May 29, 2008 @ 12:22 pm
May 29th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Of course, anything vaguely organized and negative gets filed under 'religion' by this sort of warrior, including the usual Mao and Stalin examples. Hell, Dawkins once mentioned how nationalism was the brother or sister or stepcousin to religion.
I'm glad, in a way. This sort of ranting less convinces people that religion and science are incompatible, and more highlights how scientists are very human and can be taken as such (rather than experts) when discussing such things.
Comment by nullasalus — May 29, 2008 @ 2:48 pm
May 29th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Coyne showed a slide with estimates that 3 times as many Americans believe that humans were directly created by God rather than having evolved from animal ancestors. Such religiously driven superstition is clearly incompatible with science, so Coyne does have a point to some extent, don't you agree?
Comment by Raevmo — May 29, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
May 29th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
A little while ago a commenter showed a study indicating that Americans scored higher on overall science knowledge than people in France. I don't know how the French rank compared to other nations but if science knowledge is at issue then a broad array of science topics should be tested for. That Coyne confines the matter to a single issue is more evidence of his preoccupations.
Comment by Bradford — May 29, 2008 @ 3:55 pm
May 29th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Bradford:
(link?) So what? It's OK that Americans are obese because they still live longer than Ethiopians?
So you don't mind that religion makes Americans relatively ignorant about evolution?
He gave a talk about evolution and creationism. I suppose that's also evidence of his preoccupations.
Comment by Raevmo — May 29, 2008 @ 4:16 pm
May 29th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Raevmo,
Having 'a point to some extent' is easy. Behe has a point to some extent about mutations. Hitchens has a point to some extent about Iraq. Al Gore and Vaclav Klaus both have a point to some extent about global warming. Ted Kaczynski has a point to some extent about corporations.
The point (to some extent?) is how this comes across. The fear-mongering, the demagoguery, the - wait for it - irrationality.
As for evolution v otherwise, what I've noticed is that surprisingly few people of Coyne's stripe care if anyone understands evolution. All that matters is if they say it's true or that they believe it.
Americans who believe in evolution are typically 'relatively ignorant about evolution'.
Comment by nullasalus — May 29, 2008 @ 4:35 pm
May 29th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Raevmo:
That's a superstition on your part. Americans who score highest on standardized tests are homeschooled and most of them are religious. You can know a great deal about science and still believe in God and creation. What some New Atheists (e.g. Myers et. al) would like to do is test not for knowledge but rather for belief. You've been through that in Europe before and it spawns monsters like Nazism and Bolshevism. When NAs advertise their intent to use science as an anti-religion wedge they endanger liberty as well as science.
Comment by Bradford — May 29, 2008 @ 4:48 pm
May 29th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
nullasalus:
You can't argue with the contents so you attack the style. Fair enough if you like arguing for its own sake.
I am in awe of your ability to notice what people care about. How do you do it? Why do you suppose Coyne is writing books explaining evolution?
Relative to whom?
Comment by Raevmo — May 29, 2008 @ 4:54 pm
May 29th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Bradford:
Is it a superstition to believe that religion makes Americans reject the notion that humans evolved (science), in favor of special creation (religion)? You must be joking.
That's true. But when the science contradicts the bible, many religious Americans reject the science. That's why, sadly, so many reject evolution.
And your evidence for this is?
Ah, the Nazis. There they are again. Hey, did you know that one of McCain's favorite (maybe not anymore) ministers said Hitler was sent by God to ensure the return of the Jews to the Holy land? Maybe the minister read too much science.
Comment by Raevmo — May 29, 2008 @ 5:09 pm
May 29th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Americans who score highest on standardized tests are homeschooled and most of them are religious. You can know a great deal about science and still believe in God and creation.
They certainly reject the Coynsian version which uses evolution as an attack wedge against religion. OTOH, the Mike Genes of the world get a much better reception. So who is really hurting science?
What some New Atheists (e.g. Myers et. al) would like to do is test not for knowledge but rather for belief.
Their own statements. This looks like a coming blog entry.
Comment by Bradford — May 29, 2008 @ 5:19 pm
May 29th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Bradford:
Coyne's version is a mainstream scientific version. It doesn't attack religion at all, it's just incompatible with certain religious beliefs. Too bad for those beliefs.
Huh?
Comment by Raevmo — May 29, 2008 @ 5:40 pm
May 29th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Raevmo,
And you can't defend his rhetoric or his oversimplification, hence your falling back to 'Well, okay, clearly he's rabid, but if you ignore all that and squint your eyes you can see something of value there, and that's all that matters'.
As for 'arguing for its own sake' - pot, kettle, black.
Yes, be in awe of my ability to read what people say and notice the contents of their communication. If 'whether or not they say they believe in evolution' isn't central, as opposed to understanding the science it deals with, why does that exact question come up again and again? Why does the attitude seem to be 'If they say they believe in evolution, who cares, that's good enough, unless they also believe it was designed'?
Relative to anyone who paid attention in a good high school level biology class.
Comment by nullasalus — May 29, 2008 @ 5:45 pm
May 29th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
I'm not referring to how he would describe evolution if writing for a textbook but this:
…is nothing more than an expression of his non-scientific opinions. He is using his science background and notoriety to promote NA beliefs. That's why many will rightly view is academic beliefs as a tool to peddle his non-academic views.
Comment by Bradford — May 29, 2008 @ 5:56 pm
May 29th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Now for my nearly useless reply, done mostly out of momentary boredom while I wait on other bio-units to get their butts in gear:
Some religious people think that after God created the heavens and the earth, there was a rebellion, or "fall", after which God allowed satan to do all kinds of nasty and deceptive things to the creation, like perhaps put dinosaur bones in the ground, make the earth appear older than it is, and otherwise make the evidence on earth appear to contradict the Bible.
I don't happen to agree with them. I've talked to many of these types and they have their "well reasoned" answers to anything I lob at them. I don't buy into their views, but who's to say they are wrong? What kind of evidence can you throw at them since they think the evidence has been corrupted and forged? Add to that the fact they claim "spiritual experiences" that make them think they're right, and what can you do?
At any rate, my point to you in particular is your (rather condescending) statement, "that's why, sadly, so many reject evolution." Sad? Only to you, and maybe even to me. But not to them. They don't agree with you on the fundamentals. How would you expect them to agree with you on some high level issue like evolution? They are just as convinced about their world view as you are of yours. They think your view is sad.
Anyway, thanks for indulging.
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 29, 2008 @ 6:05 pm
May 29th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
nullasalus:
Still not debating the substance and making up quotes to boot.
Did you watch the video? Voters had the option of choosing both evolution and design. They rejected that. Most chose special creation, exclusively. Unfortunately, most Americans are deluded about evolution because their shepherds tell them to.
Comment by Raevmo — May 29, 2008 @ 6:31 pm
May 29th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
kornbelt:
What can you do when I say I'm Napoleon? It's just as nuts.
I really don't care what people believe or not unless these beliefs cause harm to other people. For example, sadly, children die because their parents refuse to have them inoculated. Is that OK with you?
Comment by Raevmo — May 29, 2008 @ 6:56 pm
May 29th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Raevmo,
The substance? Read the OP. Coyne's rhetoric IS the substance. He's basically calling the NCSE and Gould either idiots or cowards, casting religious people as zealots through and through, arguing that religion (not 'some religious views' but religion, full stop) is incompatible with science, and that was must get rid of it.
Naturally, you don't want to even think about what this says about Coyne, or others like him. I can't blame you - it's indefensible. Arguing for arguing's sake is one thing, except when you can't put up a fight.
Absolutely - many Americans believe evolution is incompatible with religion because Dawkins, Coyne, and others insist that it is. I'm glad we can agree on this.
As for the numbers, go look at the 2005 Harris Poll. 46% believe men and apes have a common ancestry, and 46% believe evolution is proven by fossil evidence. When asked if they think humans developed from an earlier species, 38% (down from 44%) say yes. But when asked how humans came to be, 22% say 'evolved from an earlier species'. It's almost as if that word 'evolution' is so loaded, it can force a shift in reply.
Considering that PZ Myers will call Ken Miller a creationist depending on how Miller talks about Dawkins, and that Behe is alternately called a creationist or an evolutionist depending on who's talking, I think discerning between 'special creation', 'design', and 'evolution' in this case is tremendously nuanced - and that's assuming the people have bothered to sit down and sort their thoughts out on the subject. Along the lines of how Coyne's insistence that religion and science are utterly incompatible indicates he either hasn't realized that many people reconcile evolution with their faith - or that it just doesn't matter to him whether they do or not.
Comment by nullasalus — May 29, 2008 @ 7:11 pm
May 29th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Bradford:
So Coyne's science background and notoriety counts against his non-science beliefs. Then I guess the Pope's catholic background is a tool to peddle his scientific beliefs too.
Comment by Raevmo — May 29, 2008 @ 7:17 pm
May 29th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
nullasalus:
You're exaggerating to put it mildly. Coyne didn't call anyone an idiot or a coward or a zealot. He did say that religion is incompatible with science, and I agree. He didn't say we must get rid of religion. He said that would be a more effective way to get people to accept evolution.
How would you know what I even want to think?
And why do you think that is? Who made the word "evolution" so loaded?
Obviously many more people do not reconcile evolution with their faith. And again you pretend to know what matters to individual people.
Comment by Raevmo — May 29, 2008 @ 8:12 pm
May 29th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
He is using his science background and notoriety to promote NA beliefs. That's why many will rightly view is academic beliefs as a tool to peddle his non-academic views.
It does not necessarily discredit Coyne but it does mean that if using science as a base for politicizing is OK for Coyne then the same must be true for the Discovery Institute.:wink:
Comment by Bradford — May 29, 2008 @ 8:47 pm
May 29th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
I'm one of the folks that would answer that humans were directly created by God rather than "evolved" but this is basically due to the poor way this question is worded IMHO. And I would say this even if it turns out that history of life is exactly as Jerry Coyne believes it to be. In fact I would have said it when I agreed with Coyne.
When I hear evolved I think random purposeless accident and when I hear created I think planed intentional design it's that simple. I'm sure the majority of Americans agree.
This has nothing to do with science vs. religion or a particular view on the first chapters of Genesis vs scientific fact and has everything to do with contrasting worldviews and the way I view life.
I don't expect the other side to understand but they should know that talks like this or more science education will never change those poll numbers. The only way to change them is to rephrase the question or convince more of us that life is meaningless.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — May 29, 2008 @ 8:50 pm
May 29th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Very good fmm. Coyne has arrogantly attributed a creation process to a no God cause and then compounds his arrogance by linking this to science.
Comment by Bradford — May 29, 2008 @ 8:55 pm
May 29th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Raevmo,
But do I have a point to some extent?
Coyne cast the NCSE as pretending that science and religion are compatible. He doesn't simply view them as having a different perspective from him, but that they're flat-out and obviously wrong. If that's the case, they either old the position they do because they're deluded (basically, idiots), or because they're afraid to do otherwise (basically, cowards).
From watching you try to change the subject, and accuse anyone wanting to discuss Coyne's rhetoric and conclusions of somehow being duplicitous.
In my view, largely people who have a long-standing bone to pick with this 'religion' thing, and have crowed repeatedly that evolution proves God doesn't exist. In other words, people who value their metaphysics over and above science.
I have this crazy theory that people's mental states can at times be partly understood through material evidence trails.
It doesn't matter if 'many don't'. Anymore than it matters that Lysenkoism alone illustrated that atheists can be downright nutty and anti-science - it doesn't therefore follow that 'atheism cannot be compatible with science', even if someone advances such a claim. Many do, and that's enough to get the point across.
Comment by nullasalus — May 29, 2008 @ 9:08 pm
May 29th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Yes, that's very sad. Much more sad than someone disbelieving common descent.
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 29, 2008 @ 9:35 pm
May 29th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
So you agree that religion is incompatible with science. Are you saying that acceptance of evolution rationally obligates the person to become an Atheist? Or are you saying that religious scientists are either dishonest, deluded, or too stupid to notice this obvious incompatibility?
Comment by MikeGene — May 29, 2008 @ 10:02 pm
May 29th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Raevmo,
Why is it so important to you and Coyne that people accept your view of origins? Will the world become a better place when all beliefs regarding origins are discarded except the belief in undirected evolution? Doesn't your belief at its core boil down to a type of religion?
Comment by 0112358 — May 29, 2008 @ 10:45 pm
May 29th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
That's a good question for Coyne, Raevmo a number of critics and atheists. Why is it so important to get others to adopt your worldview? When they don't they are subjected to your insults. What's that about?
Comment by Bradford — May 29, 2008 @ 11:17 pm
May 29th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
The word you're looking for is "ideology."
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 29, 2008 @ 11:18 pm
May 29th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
kornbelt888,
Yes, "ideology" fits nicely too. "Religion", however, sounds so much more poetical in the current discussion.
Comment by 0112358 — May 29, 2008 @ 11:53 pm
May 30th, 2008 at 12:12 am
IMHO the idea that understanding much less believing in evolution is important to scientific literacy is silly.
I don't need a thorough understanding of Darwinism, ID or creationism to build a better airplane, send a spaceship to Mars, or develop alternate energy sources.
We simply can't test our ideas about the past in the same way we can test aircraft design theories, medicines, or fusion reactor theory. Calling theories about the past "science" will never prove these theories in the same way we can prove Newton's laws or Einstein's theories. I remain sceptical of any attempt to explain the prehistoric past.
cheers
Comment by AZMark — May 30, 2008 @ 12:12 am
May 30th, 2008 at 3:55 am
Mike:
No, that's the view of many evolution deniers, and it's why evolution is unacceptable to them.
To borrow Coyne's words, it takes some cognitive dissonance IMO. Science relies on critical analysis of the facts, religion typically requires belief without evidence or even against the evidence.
0112358:
Why is it so important to you? I think little good can come out of denying scientific facts to preserve religious beliefs.
Bradford:
Don't be such a hypocrite. You are regularly insulting and banning people for disagreeing.
Comment by Raevmo — May 30, 2008 @ 3:55 am
May 30th, 2008 at 5:24 am
I can think of something much worse. Scientists and those involved in the teaching of science who misuse science for their own selfish ends. Who cares if a businessman or a truckdriver does not believe in evolution? It matters not. But if those people perceive that evolution is used as a wedge to attack their personal beliefs then are they to blame for resisting something that is not part of their work or are the Coynes of the world to blame for needlessly injecting their own metaphysical preferences into what should be a discussion about science?
Bradford:
Why is it so important to get others to adopt your worldview? When they don't they are subjected to your insults. What's that about?
You should know better than anyone that I tolerate much BS from you and others. "Blight on society" Where else on the web could you get away with that? I have much to learn from the swampies about insults. They are the true experts at it and proud of it to boot. That's something to take pride in.:roll:
Comment by Bradford — May 30, 2008 @ 5:24 am
May 30th, 2008 at 7:13 am
Hi Raevmo,
Which is a view that is shared by people like Dawkins and Myers, who have told the world they felt the need to abandon their faith when they learned about evolution. Okay, but at least we can agree that acceptance of evolution does not mean that person is rationally obligated to become an atheist. So we can also agree that Dawkins/Myers' decision to become atheists must have involved other factors.
Yes, that is your opinion. That you share this opinion with Coyne means only that you two have the same opinion.
There's that magic word "˜evidence' again. Since it plays a critical role in your attack on religious scientists, why not define it?
As for a critical analysis of facts, I note that was completely missing in Coyne's discussion of religion and you yourself admit your own views about religious scientists are rooted in opinion. Shouldn't you two practice what you preach and stop being so religious?
Religion and science can indeed be alternative and compatible ways of looking at the world. Coyne is entitled to his disagreement rooted in subjective opinion, but by telling others "do not pretend," Coyne doesn't seem to realize he has only opinion. He is merely expressing one strain of naïve realism.
Comment by MikeGene — May 30, 2008 @ 7:13 am
May 30th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Mike:
I don't really know and I don't really care why Dawkins/Myers became atheists. If they say learning about evolution made them give up their religious beliefs, I think I can understand that (although I never believed in any gods). After all, evolution does refute certain religious beliefs. Whether their decision to become atheists involved other factors, you have to ask them.
Um, yeah. It seems we share the same opinion. How about that?
Let me quote your book, page xi:
You didn't define it. So what do you mean by the evidence?
Having an opinion is being religious? Coyne was discussing the significantly negative correlation between the percentage of religious people in a country and the percentage that accept evolution. He said that correlation does not imply causation and he gave several possible explanations for the observations. It sounded to me like a critical analysis of facts. What do you think was lacking in his analysis?
Indeed they can, in principle, but many, I would say most, religious beliefs are incompatible with science. Coyne seems perfectly aware that he is expressing an opinion. He even said that he expected many people to disagree with him. Your use of the "naive realism" concept is just cheap name-calling of those who disagree with you.
Comment by Raevmo — May 30, 2008 @ 8:18 pm
May 30th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Raevmo,
Coyne didn't bother explaining the observations for the correlation, other than 'it's religion'. And he said that there were only two responses: Teach more science, or attack religion, and that the latter option was the best choice.
And he went beyond analysis. He rounded out a call for action, including 'we are the establishment so let's act like it', insisting that they should never be debated (solely because it gives them credibility, and that ID opponents may lose the debate), that no ID proponent is a scientist 'even though some of them have degrees' (So, any belief in ID alone makes them not scientists?). His advice for 'educate yourself about the controversy' was limited to 'go to the NCSE, they oppose this, so it's a great learning resource'. Which was a fun contrast later in the presentation, where he started to talk about how scientists, unlike religious people, are open-minded and engage in civil discourse.
He made other mistakes as well, including talking about how he'd believe in the supernatural if only something supernatural (30 foot tall Jesus appearing to him) happened to him - without realizing that the seemingly supernatural could always be explained away as something else (delusion, advanced technology, misunderstanding, etc), indicating he clearly has no idea about the limitations of science by its founding commitments.
Hell, his central chart alone was deceptive. 'Oh hey, France and Iceland hover at around a 20% belief in God, they were once profoundly religious'. If he's using the 2005 eurobarometer poll, have a look at those countries and see where the splits are between 'belief in God' 'no belief in God' or 'belief in some kind of spirit or life force'. Is the last one part of this 'rationalism' culture Coyne talks about? If 38% of Iceland believes in God, 48% in some kind of spirit or lifeforce, and 11% believes in neither, and they have a high acceptance of evolution - doesn't that indicate that 'religion' and 'evolution' are not only compatible, but are so without needing to attack religion wholesale?
But really, the best bit of all was his suggestion that religious people blow each other up when they have disagreements (Yes, interfaith activities, discourse, discussion, etc.. that never happens), while scientists don't attack other scientists who disagree with them (That Lysenkoism thing? Never happened. Scientist involvement with eugenics? Nonsense. James Watson's talks on race? He's not really a scientist, by these rules I just made up.) All this before the already highlighted issues of the US poll numbers related to evolution, creationism, design, and otherwise.
Really, it was a silly presentation. Coyne was out of his depth, and seemingly is interested more in social/political goals than science, much less evolution itself. What a surprise.
Comment by nullasalus — May 30, 2008 @ 9:16 pm
May 30th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
If you take it as truth. Some religionists think the evidence for common descent was the product of satanist corruption of the evidence.
Whether or not this is plausible depends on one's philosophical assumptions. Science can't address it at all. Blind evolution may make Dawkins feel like an intellectually fulfilled atheist, but it requires certain assumptions about reality that cannot be demonstrated.
He and his fellow travelers are welcome to their particular flavor of philosophical paste.
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 30, 2008 @ 9:44 pm
May 31st, 2008 at 1:54 am
Raevmo,
You are confusing the term "religious beliefs" with "religiously held opinions". Religiously held opinions are incompatible with science, many religious beliefs are not.
There are many religious people who hold their beliefs religiously because they are afraid that advances in science will shatter their neatly held view of the world. Likewise, there are many scientifically oriented people who hold onto certain unscientific beliefs religiously, invoking the name of Science, because they are afraid that their neatly held view of the world will fall apart if any crack appears.
The ID movement has opend a crack and the ideologues are making a concerted effort to mend it.
In the past I was among those holding certain religious beliefs religiously because I was afraid my whole world view would begin to crumble if one pillar was knocked out by science. Now, however, I have no fear of what true science might uncover. Science is a search for truth and as long as it is truth that is uncovered, it is important to accept that truth. If we don't we are just deluding ourselves. We need, however, to differentiate between true science and ideology wrapped in scientific jargon.
True science can uncover some, but not all, truth about the natural world. True science deals with observable phenomena. Origins is not an observable phenomena and therefore can not be definitively answered by science. At best scientific observations can hint at an answer and that puts adherents to ID and adherents to Naturalism on the same playing field.
Comment by 0112358 — May 31, 2008 @ 1:54 am
June 1st, 2008 at 11:59 am
Hi Raevmo,
Quote-mining, eh? You should read chapter 6.
According to you, religion typically requires belief without evidence or even against the evidence. The notion that science and religion are incompatible is itself a belief without evidence or even against the evidence. That's why you have to rationalize tens of thousands of religious scientists as all practicing cognitive dissonance.
Lots and lots of context. Consider just three points.
1. Coyne's graph seems to be based on this figure:
According to this graph, the UK scores the 6th highest in acceptance of evolution (around 70% or so). Yet according to this survey:
So which is it? A scientist focused on a critical analysis of facts should talk about the reliability of such polling data and explain why we should trust the one chosen poll he relies on.
2. Coyne identifies the problem point as the United States and offers his solution of getting "rid of religion." But he omits two very relevant points.
a. What is the freq of acceptance of evolution in the United States as a function of time? Coyne only mentions that things have not changed in the last 20 years, but has the freq of acceptance EVER been higher in this country? To turn religion into a problem, he needs to make the case that things are getting worse rather than discover how things have always been. In fact, I'd bet that the freq of acceptance of evolution in the USA is at a historic high.
b. To turn religion into a problem, Coyne does not mention that rates of science literacy in America are no different than they are in Canada, Europe, or Japan (the nations that make up his graph). In fact, as we have discuseed on this blog, they have even been measured to be higher.
A critical analysis of the facts would lead me to believe there is no problem that calls for getting rid of religion. Instead, it is more likely that Coyne has the preconception that we need to get rid of religion and is thus engaged in confirmation bias.
Yet the only reason you offer for thinking so is that religious belief requires a lower standard of empirical evidence than science. Well heck, getting through each and every day as a human being requires a lower standard of empirical evidence than science. Does this mean human beings are incompatible with the human expression known as science?
Expecting people to disagree is not inconsistent with naïve realism, as someone like Coyne can easily rationalize the disagreement by claiming some fault on the part of those who disagree (Coyne sees the world "as it is" while others don't). If Coyne was not engaged in naïve realism, he would admit his case about incompatibility was weak and rooted largely in his own personal opinion. Instead, he arrogantly dismisses NOMA as "hogwash," and pompous pronouncements often go hand-in-hand with naïve realism. What's more, Coyne's incompatibility position is at odds with the NAS, AAAS, and NCSE. In other words, Coyne is advocating a crank position.
Comment by MikeGene — June 1, 2008 @ 11:59 am
June 1st, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Mike:
That's exactly what they are practicing. I'm pretty sure that most religious scientists didn't become religious after carefully weighing the evidence and then concluding that the odds are in favor of the stories in the bible or the qur'an or whatever holy book. Of course not. They were brought up to believe, and it's difficult to reject decades of lessons by your loved ones. Yet had they practiced the standards of evidence that scientific research requires, they would be forced to abandon the security of their beliefs. Which is what most practicing scientists have done.
I think that graph came from a peer-reviewed journal called Science. It's not that unreasonable to trust that source.
So you have a different opinion than Coyne. Therefore Coyne is engaged in confirmation bias. And you complain about arrogance.
By that standard, you are yourself advocating a crank position.
Comment by Raevmo — June 1, 2008 @ 2:43 pm
June 1st, 2008 at 3:17 pm
If standards of scientific evidence were actually applied you and others would have to abandon most of your beliefs or become zombie like about every non-empirical matter. You single out religion as if it were somehow different from the emotionalism that guides politics, or the personality typing that is a factor in predicting of one's artistic taste or the self-habits that go a long way to determing the moral values of many. Most of life is not amenable to a lab. When Coyne does not make note of this and other realities, like the broader testing of scientific literacy, he reveals that it is personal bias motivating his sympathies toward New Atheism. The fact of being a scientist confers no greater standing in pontificating views like this.
Comment by Bradford — June 1, 2008 @ 3:17 pm
June 1st, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Bradford:
Give me an example.
Most every-day problems are not important enough to apply time-consuming rigorous standards of evidence. However, I should think that religious belief is far too important for a cavalier approach.
Are you saying you think religion is not different? Hard to believe.
That's right, and Coyne didn't claim such standing. All Coyne did was make the (very plausible) claim that religious belief is an impediment to accepting the scientific theory of evolution, and that it would be good to make an effort to reduce religiosity. That's just his opinion, and he made sufficiently clear that's all it was.
Comment by Raevmo — June 1, 2008 @ 4:07 pm
June 1st, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Raevmo,
Just the opinion of the guy saying he wants to sway 'the establishment', arguing the topic should not be open to discussion on this point, because 'they' control the conversation and therefore it's the duty of open-minded people to discourage dissent. The "it's just his opinion" plea doesn't work when he's advocating not just personal action, but institutional action as a result of his "opinion".
Coyne's presentation was addle-minded. He equated the lack of religion with 'rationalism', the having of religion with killing people who disagree with you (in contrasts to those scientists, much less other rationalists, who never advocate violence or dissuasive tactics to deal with those who disagree with them, yes?), and parleyed the conflicting stances of some beliefs and science with all religion and any belief in God, full stop. He also mentioned before starting his final bit about religion that he was about to lose all his credibility - probably the most on-target observation he had in that phase of his presentation.
Actually, many scientists (both religious and not) likely realize that some beliefs and thoughts about the world are largely, even entirely outside of the scientific realm. You have to realize this to some point, hence your squirreling back to 'This was only Coyne's opinion' - because 'that's not an opinion, it's the stance science demands' would be an obvious joke.
Is there a God? Was the world created intentionally, or an act of chance or chaos? Is there an objective morality? At best, science provides data for people to consider when considering these things. Open-minded thought, NOT science, makes them realize that they may well be wrong, no matter what they do think.
Since when? We've heard claims that Stalin, Mao, and other political ideologies were actually just religion under another guise. Dawkins himself has sniffed that nationalism is related to religion. Hell, Coyne's own presentation smacked of politics and short-sightedness - saying that it was 'just his opinion' doesn't make his poorly-supported observations, much less his inane call to action, any less of a joke.
Have a look at Lysenkoism. Have a look at some acts of the PETA. Tell me that politics and ideological belief doesn't impact science plenty - hell, far more than religion does nowadays in many quarters.
Coyne's quite a threat to science himself - angling for change based on a poorly thought out, poorly supported 'opinion', confusing the distinctions between science and philosophy, and discouraging people from debating those that disagree with him on the topic on the grounds that A) it lends credibility to people who want to discuss the topic, and B) he thinks it's likely his favored side will lose the debate many times.
Comment by nullasalus — June 1, 2008 @ 5:17 pm
June 1st, 2008 at 5:30 pm
If standards of scientific evidence were actually applied you and others would have to abandon most of your beliefs or become zombie like about every non-empirical matter.
Raevmo:
I'll give you a good example already alluded to. Politics. It is worth applying time consuming analysis and rigorous standards of evidence to issues impacted by governmental policies. Yet when I read or listen to most political discussions I'm struck by the lack of rationality to it. Where is the much touted reasoned approach based on rigorous standards of evidence? There is much emotional dissonance based on personal prejudice. Not much else in a matter of considerable significance. Does the lack of rigor refrain commenters or more to the point lead the Coynes of the world to bemoan the irrational nature of the exchanges? I only wish it did. But Coyne is stuck on religion and the worst part of it, from my perspective, is that he exacerbates tensions between religious people and those who think like him. But then again the NAs really want a war. No blessed are the peacemakers in a camp filled with the likes of Myers, Dawkins…
Let him give his opinion but bear this in mind. The reason many people reject mainstream evolution is their perception that the opinion attached to it by Coyne is a part of mainstream thinking. IOW, it is more than mutations and natural selection. There is the belief that excluding God from one's thinking is an integral part of the academic scene.
Comment by Bradford — June 1, 2008 @ 5:30 pm
June 1st, 2008 at 5:52 pm
nullasalus:
You're losing it. What kind of "institutional action"
The joke is on you, since nobody claimed otherwise. Of course certain beliefs (like somehow God set it all in motion) are so vague as to be outside of the scientific realm. That's the realm where the more sophisticated believers like to hang out, since they know there's no serious empirical case for the mainstream beliefs (you know, the one involving miracles and resurrections and all that), adhered to by most those folks that reject evolution.
If it's such a joke, why don't you provide some evidence that rejection of evolution has nothing to do with religious belief. Of course you can't.
Comment by Raevmo — June 1, 2008 @ 5:52 pm
June 1st, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Hi Raevmo,
And I'm pretty sure that most religious scientists would tell you that the methods of science are inadequate when it comes to the issues and questions that most religions focus on. Thus, while the approaches are different, they are not incompatible. And I'll bet that all scientists hold many beliefs (political, social, and metaphysical) that did not come about by carefully weighing the evidence and then concluding that the odds are in favor in their favorite beliefs. So why the selective complaining?
Do you have any scientific evidence to support this belief? Or is it yet another subjective opinion?
Do you have any evidence that the article was peer reviewed? Even if it was, it appears the peer reviewers failed to raise the three problems I raised, so such peer review doesn't mean that much.
Coyne is the one arguing that religion and science are incompatible ways of viewing the world, yet he has no solid evidence for his belief. His only evidence "“ his graph - suffers from at least three major flaws that I outlined above.
That would simply mean that you, me, and Coyne all share something in common "“ we advocate crank positions. My crank position is the hypothesis that life was designed. The crank position you and Coyne share is an extremist position that attacks religious scientists while advocating naïve realism.
Comment by MikeGene — June 1, 2008 @ 6:25 pm
June 1st, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Raevmo,
Gee, Raevmo, I don't know. How about 'do not debate with them', 'do not allow them any credibility', 'don't consider them to be scientists, even if they have the appropriate experience'? Do you really think Coyne was there just to give his opinion, not suggest courses of action for professors, scientists, and others?
You may want to actually watch the presentation. It'd do wonders for your understanding of it.
Vague beliefs, like "I don't know how this all came to be, but it certainly wasn't God" There is no 'serious empirical case' for atheism either - hence the often confused fallback of 'Only those making a claim must present evidence!' that many play with. Necessitating the reminder of 'Claiming there is no God is a claim itself'.
'Most those folks' who claim not to believe in evolution are in the same boat as those who do - generally not deeply educated about the science and issues. And the data indicates that a fair chunk of people's rejection of evolution may have little to do with the scientific or religious claims, and more to do with a bad perception of evolution as a concept. It's as if some guys who care more about their metaphysics than about science are out there confusing the issue, associating evolution with atheism in order to further their social spat with religion.
Please. I've pointed out that Coyne's claim that 'scientists are reasonable and don't resort to violence or otherwise' is not just bullshit, but obvious bullshit via reference to Lysenkoism and the PETA, to begin with. I've pointed out that Coyne's claim that European countries that largely accept evolution are 'rationalistic' is a bit weak considering the 2005 Eurobarometer polls. We both know that plenty of religious people have no problem accepting evolution as well as their faith.
You want me to keep on Coyne? It'd be my pleasure: Less than a third of people in Estonia classify themselves as believers according to the wiki entry. The Czech Republic is in a similar situation - 19% declare a belief in God, 50% in some sort of spirit or life force, and the rest nonbelievers. There was some of that 'need to get rid of religion' opinion put into practice in these countries.
But who's beating them out on the chart Mike provided? Let's see.
Spain (59% believe in God, 21% in a spirit/lifeforce)
Ireland (75%, 22%).
German (47%, 25%)
Italy (74%, 16%)
And topping out the list, a country Coyne himself referred to
Iceland (38%, 48%)
Gee, Raevmo. It's almost as if attempting to improve belief in evolution by attacking religion is a really stupid idea - an oversimplification driven more by ideology than anything else. Maybe the focus should remain on improving education in general, and trusting people to make their own minds up when it comes to belief.
But wait, maybe they won't make the right decision? Perhaps education just isn't enough. Then, comrade, perhaps we should consider dealing with some of these people, eh? I know this lovely little place in Siberia, perfect for those who just refuse to understand what is clear to so many.
Comment by nullasalus — June 1, 2008 @ 6:44 pm
June 1st, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Mike:
I'm sure they would, but that doesn't mean that religion is adequate to answer those questions. Granted, where the questions don't overlap, there is no compatibility problem.
Come on, the thread is about Coyne's talk, which is about evolution and religion.
Scientists being less religious than the general public supports this.
I didn't check with the editor to see if it was peer-reviewed. Write a letter to the editor to complain.
I'm happy being a crank, but I don't think my position is all that extreme. I know far too many like-minded scientists.
Comment by Raevmo — June 1, 2008 @ 7:08 pm
June 1st, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Raevmo,
So, 40% of scientists aren't properly applying their understanding of science, because they believe in God. How do we support this? By pointing out that the other scientists don't believe in God. And clearly they're doing it right.
I hesitate to cite this, as I'd vastly prefer to have the source paper in my hands. But supposedly, 2/3 of scientists believe in God. That's news to me, since I'm used to the 40% figure. If anyone knows where to get the source data, I'd appreciate it.
Edit: Not the source, but more data.
Some interesting tidbits:
Comment by nullasalus — June 1, 2008 @ 7:31 pm
June 1st, 2008 at 7:52 pm
nullasalus:
That's some heavy-duty "institutional action" that Coyne advocates.
Cheap shot.
I don't know anybody who claims "it certainly wasn't God". A lack of evidence suffices to disbelieve. If you want to convince me otherwise, show me the data.
Really? What data would that be?
This is just laughable. Lysenkoism was imposed by a mad dictator and what does PETA have to do with science?
All this because Coyne quipped that scientists don't blow each other up, unlike certain religious adversaries?
I'm all for that.
Nice one. Suggesting that I want to kill religious people. Alas, the days of the inquisition are over.
Comment by Raevmo — June 1, 2008 @ 7:52 pm
June 1st, 2008 at 8:15 pm
nullasalus:
It's hard to accept isn't it, that scientists are less likely to believe in God? It's just a symptom of education opening people's eyes.
Comment by Raevmo — June 1, 2008 @ 8:15 pm
June 1st, 2008 at 8:16 pm
MikeGene wrote:
Here is the paper from which the figure was taken:
Science Communication: Public Acceptance of Evolution
Jon D. Miller, Eugenie C. Scott, and Shinji Okamoto
Science, 313, 5788 (2006).
doi:10.1126/science.1126746
It can be downloaded for free from Richard Dawkins web site: link
Look, in particular, at Fig. S1 in Supplemental Material, which presents the results of a cross-national study of the United States and nine European nations done in 2002-2003 (see paper for details).
The authors puts their collective finger at the origin of the difference between the attitudes towards evolution in the US and Europe:
And no, this is not a peer-reviewed paper: it didn't have the "submitted/accepted" dates and appeared in the Policy Forum section of Science.
Comment by olegt — June 1, 2008 @ 8:16 pm
June 1st, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Raevmo,
I think it's 'heavy-duty' enough to stand in contrast to 'Coyne's just giving his opinion'.
You're losing it.
Anecdotal in both directions, but I know those who do. Whether the evidence is consistent with a belief in God ('God would create a world like this, with the features it has') is the stuff of philosophy and theology anyway, not science. Which is a large part of the point here - science can only inform the discussion, not decide on it.
From me, earlier:
As for the numbers, go look at the 2005 Harris Poll. 46% believe men and apes have a common ancestry, and 46% believe evolution is proven by fossil evidence. When asked if they think humans developed from an earlier species, 38% (down from 44%) say yes. But when asked how humans came to be, 22% say 'evolved from an earlier species'. It's almost as if that word 'evolution' is so loaded, it can force a shift in reply.
'All this' is an illustration that Coyne is apparently ignorant of the history in his own damn field. Lysenkoism was imposed by Stalin, at the behest of Lysenko and other scientists, all too happy to mix ideology with science. Scientists are human beings, at times prone to extremes, abuses of power, and otherwise. On the flipside, there are many (modern, even) examples of religious people, even religious leaders, engaging in open dialogue with those of other faiths or no faith. Coyne's indicates ignorance, or willful deception.
As for the PETA, sure - they engage in politicizing of science plenty. If you want examples, by all means, I'm willing to play.
Then you agree that Coyne's treatment of the issue is wrong-headed and oversimplified? He can have all the stupid opinions he wants - I have plenty of mine. But he's outlining a call to action here based on vague, oversimplified associations.
I'd put the inquisition's numbers against mere Lysenkoism any day of the week. As for the joke - you're mister 'Get in the oven, religious people!' when it comes to humor. The croc tears impress no one.
'Education opening people's eyes'? - funny, but I cited a study investigating as much, and the discovery was that atheist scientists tend to have been raised in atheistic or only nominally religious households. It's hard to accept, isn't it, that scientists (as well as atheists) are just as prone to cultural forces and oversimplification as anyone else?
Comment by nullasalus — June 1, 2008 @ 8:23 pm
June 1st, 2008 at 8:27 pm
olegt:
I'm not sure that implies it wasn't peer-reviewed. Review articles also don't have the "submitted/accepted" dates, but they are peer-reviewed.
Comment by Raevmo — June 1, 2008 @ 8:27 pm
June 1st, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Raevmo,
Categories of signed papers in Science explained.
The guidelines specifically mention peer review for reviews, brevia, and technical comments (it goes without saying that research articles and reports are peer-reviewed). There is no mention of peer review in the description of commentary sections (Policy Forum among them). And that's how it's supposed to be: letters and such reflect personal opinions and not necessarily a consensus.
Comment by olegt — June 1, 2008 @ 8:57 pm
June 1st, 2008 at 10:31 pm
nullasalus wrote:
I have watched the video, so perhaps I can comment on this.
First of all, the passage to which you are referring appears towards the end of the lecture. Coyne lists 5 bullet points under the heading "What can we do?"
1. Teach the evidence for evolution.
2. Teach the meaning of "theory" in science.
3. Emphasize the distinction between natural and supernatural explanations, and the impotence of the latter.
4. Recognize that, when it comes to science, we are the establishment.
5. Educate yourself about the controversy.
In the part of the lecture to which you refer Coyne discusses bullet point 4. Here's my transcript:
I fully agree with all of that.
For starters, creationism (whether the YEC variety or ID) isn't science, it belongs in the realms of theology and philosophy. You had the courage to acknowledge that yourself. What's the problem with Coyne saying that?
Next, science is settled by comparing theories vs experimental data, not by debates. Debates can win an argument in philosophy, theology, and law. Creationists, by and large, are philosophers, theologians and lawyers—just look up the occupations of Discovery Institute fellows. Therefore creationists are good at debates while scientists, by and large, aren't. Coyne is giving practical advice. What's the problem with that, again?
And furthermore, I share the overall sentiment of his message. Science enjoys considerable respect in the society because it has earned it. The ID movement has not earned such level of respect. Its deceitful tactics (Wedge document, anyone? cdesign proponentsists? From Darwin to Hitler?) show clearly what ID is about.
Comment by olegt — June 1, 2008 @ 10:31 pm
June 1st, 2008 at 11:40 pm
olegt,
Coyne's rendition of 'educate yourself about the controversy' was 'Go to the NCSE's site, because they're on the right side'. Interesting take on "educate". As well, 'supernatural' explanations are impotent with regards to science precisely because science is broadly incapable of investigating the supernatural - Coyne's example (Well hey if a 30 foot Jesus appeared to me I'd accept that as supernatural evidence) is woefully flawed, and betrays an ignorance or mishandling of the distinction between what sort of answers science can yield.
Because that's not what Coyne is saying - he didn't argue that theology/philosophy is in a distinct realm from science, hence his calls for an attack on religion as a whole. His understanding of the entire divide was, by the few mutterings he gave, demonstrably uninformed and amateurish.
A number of things. For one, it's not as if the only people who regularly debate the topic are ID proponents. For another, one large aspect of the ID debate relates to what does and does not qualify as science. If the facts aren't clear enough to provide a decisive win to Coyne's desired point of view, maybe it's not because 'those darn creationists are just too crafty', but that they may actually have a point about something. Recently we've seen articles posted about some biologists who frankly hate ID, but have serious dissenting views from some mainstream evolution and think they're encountering hostility because there's an institutional perception that 'We can't allow anyone to question anything, because that gives ammo to creationists'. The mindset of Coyne may be downright harmful to science.
But is it too dangerous to openly discuss that, for fear of the religion bogeyman? And do we really need to declare people 'not scientists', despite education and otherwise, just because they favor ID?
You're anthropomorphizing a broad (and growing) set of views about nature - I may as well say that Darwin's private letters on religion, the eugenics movement and Haeckel's embryo drawings 'show clearly what darwinism is about'. Not to mention Coyne's 'we should be attacking religion' routine itself.
Guys like Coyne are precisely why I not only favor ID in a philosophical sphere, but at least sympathize with many of the proponents in general. Coyne & Co. often approach the general subject in an abysmal and biased way, and attach secondary political motives to the greater goal of 'enhancing education of science'. If his argument was simply that religion/philosophy and science vastly occupy differing spheres and that science can't rule on the questions ID asks one way or the other, I'd probably have been irritated at his tone but little more. Instead he's mixing philosophy, politics and science, and trying to pass off the result as the dictate of pure science. This doesn't become an acceptable thing, just because Coyne is on the supposed 'right' side re: evolution and design.
Comment by nullasalus — June 1, 2008 @ 11:40 pm
June 2nd, 2008 at 12:27 am
Hi Raevmo,
And since something like 75% of scientists are male, then, by the same logic, does that mean being a woman is incompatible with being a scientist?
Comment by MikeGene — June 2, 2008 @ 12:27 am
June 2nd, 2008 at 8:32 am
nullasalus wrote:
Sorry to point out the obvious, nullasalus, but when it comes to science, Jerry Coyne is the professional and you're the amateur.
Credentials aside, Coyne understands the issues well. He spent a quarter of the talk explaining what ID is. He pointed out the weak (it must have been designed…) and strong (… by Christian God) forms of ID and concluded correctly that the former is dead science and the latter is theology. Towards the end of the talk he showed the following slide:
His next slide read
You may disagree with him, but you can't accuse him of being uninformed and amateurish.
You further wrote:
Don't be silly. It takes two to tango. You can't have a debate where only creationists are represented.
And go back to my previous comment. I said there that science is not decided by debates. If IDers want their stuff to be regarded as science, there's the standard route to that: you need a theory (there's none at this point) and you need it tested against data. No amount of debating can replace that. Follow the path of Lynn Margulis: she went against the prevalent viewpoint and she won by demonstrating her theory to work.
Sorry, nullasalus, but that won't work. Newton was a rather unpleasant fellow, but he had good science. Say what you will about Darwin, but he had good science as well. Fraud happens in science even today (Hendrik Schoen in my own field), but that doesn't mean science is wrong. On the other hand, Phillip Johnson, Bill Dembski, Mike Behe, and Discovery Institute have produced zero science and we've seen enough to conclude that their motivations are purely religious. The ID movement lost its credibility and if you don't like that maybe you should start another one.
Comment by olegt — June 2, 2008 @ 8:32 am
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:09 pm
olegt,
Sorry to burst your bubble, olegt, but the moment Coyne stops talking about evolution and starts talking about philosophy and theology, he's out of his field - he's an amateur, and his treatment of those subjects proves as much. Further, because it seems like you're reading but not absorbing: I said outright that if Coyne were simply arguing that ID touches on philosophical and theological issues and therefore goes beyond the scope of science, I'd take issue with his tone, but nothing more. That's not what happened. His examples and references indicate he either has a flawed grasp of why some questions are beyond the scope of science, or he isn't concerned about being accurate.
If we're playing the credentials game, Dembski's the one with the M.Div - he outguns Coyne when it comes to issues of theology and philosophy. I'm not interested in the distinction in credentials, but arguments.
I can easily accuse him of being amateurish, because he's outside of his field on the topics I'm criticizing him on - which has nothing to do with any scientific claims of ID, and everything to do with the borders between theology, philosophy and science, the issues of religion's compatibility with evolution, and how best to handle the perceived problems.
I&