The Chamberlainites Strike Back
by MikeGeneBack in 2006, Richard Dawkins lashed out at his fellow ID critics, labeling them "Chamberlainites." In doing so, Dawkins also made it clear that he and his followers are using science as a Trojan Horse to evangelize for Atheism. It also became clear that Dawkins was undercutting the logic of the Dover decision against ID, as Dawkins contradicted the message of the NCSE and argued that science can indeed determine whether or not supernatural causes are at play. In light of all this, it was only a matter of time before the Chamberlainites would strike back. And in this case, they raised the stakes and chose no less than the pages of the Washington Post to launch an attack on Richard Dawkins.
Nisbet and Mooney expand on their "frame" argument, but this time, they lead off with Richard Dawkins in the cross-hairs:
If the defenders of evolution wanted to give their creationist adversaries a boost, it's hard to see how they could do better than Richard Dawkins, the famed Oxford scientist who had a bestseller with "The God Delusion." Dawkins, who rose to fame with his lucid expositions of evolution in such books as "The Selfish Gene," has never gone easy on religion. But recently he has ramped up his atheist message, further mixing his defense of evolution with his attack on belief.
Leave aside for a moment the validity of Dawkins's arguments against religion. The fact remains: The public cannot be expected to differentiate between his advocacy of evolution and his atheism. More than 80 percent of Americans believe in God, after all, and many fear that teaching evolution in our schools could undermine the belief system they consider the foundation of morality (and perhaps even civilization itself). Dawkins not only reinforces and validates such fears — baseless though they may be — but lends them an exclamation point.
We agree with Dawkins on evolution and admire his books, so we don't enjoy singling him out. But he stands as a particularly stark example of scientists' failure to explain hot-button issues, such as global warming and evolution, to a wary public.
In other words, Nisbet and Mooney are trying to frame Dawkins, the failure, as someone who gives ammunition to the creationists (The Big Sin). Now, as much as I have been critical of Dawkins, in this case, I'd have to say that Nisbet and Mooney are behaving far worse. The key point is where they choose to "leave aside for a moment the validity of Dawkins's argument against religion." Of course, they don't just leave it aside for the moment; they push it off the radar screen completely.
Y'see, it is precisely the validity of Dawkins's arguments that should matter. Instead of offering valid counter-arguments (like this), Nisbet and Mooney are more concerned about Dawkins as a political liability. In other words, even if Dawkins was correct, they want him to shut up for purely political reasons. I guess that is what framing is all about.
Oh, and don't forget to read further into the article. Nisbet and Mooney use the pages of the Washington Post to single out and attack PZ Myers. 
April 14th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
This is quintessential politicking worthy of campaign strategists. It is no longer a matter of advocacy (they agree with Dawkins) but rather a tactical dispute. When a desired outcome (not fueling the anxieties of religious people) assumes a higher priority than the message itself then philosophical advocacy has taken a back seat to political expediency.
Comment by Bradford — April 14, 2007 @ 6:43 pm
April 14th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Hi Mike,
Are you sitting down?
I agree with your post (at least most it).
I have posted a comment on Nisbet's web site.
It might be interesting to see his response.
Regards,
TP
P.S. My comment is up. Here is the link.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 14, 2007 @ 7:04 pm
April 15th, 2007 at 12:43 am
Since thought_provoker agreed, I am obligated to disagree. At least about whether Nisbet and Mooney should directly counter Dawkins argument against religion. Such a defense would require them to delve into philosophical/theological territory that they would argue are outside the bounds of science. And it is these very boundaries are what allow religion and science to co-exist harmoniously for many.
You rather cynically believe they "put aside" the validity of Dawkin's argument because it is politically expedient to ignore it. But a more generous reading would be that engaging him would mean "crossing the streams." Just because Dawkins steps over the line doesn't mean you have to cross over and engage him there. You simply emphasize why its important that those boundaries exist and point out how foolish and counterproductive it is for one sphere to try to assert itself over another.
Or, to put it another way, if religion needs a defense from scientists against Dawkins' "scientific" attack, it would indicate that religion needs the blessing of science. And that would go a long way toward conceding victory to Dawkins.
Comment by great_ape — April 15, 2007 @ 12:43 am
April 15th, 2007 at 8:46 am
Hi GreatApe:
I'd be happy to offer a generous reading, it's just that there is nothing to support it. For example, Nisbet and Mooney do not emphasize why its important those boundaries exist, nor do they defend the boundaries. All they do is point out that Dawkins is a political liability, as "a particularly stark example of scientists' failure to explain hot-button issues." That's it.
Furthermore, consider what their fellow scienceblogger has to say about them:
Well, well. Assuming this is a valid claim, Nisbet and Mooney actually agree with the anti-religion agenda and the whole argument is about tactics. Or frames. How could they take issue with the validity of Dawkins's arguments if they are closet fans of those arguments?
This argument does not work for two reasons.
1. Thanks to the ID debate, we already know that many critics are willing to speak quite loudly that science cannot be used to determine whether or not God exists. In fact, many have been willing to sign decrees along these lines. Why is it that so many critics have suddenly gone silent about this argument? Same arguments, different movements, thus different reaction.
2. Dawkins makes sociological claims that are pseudoscientific nonsense. The obvious one is his attempt to equate religious parents with child abusers. Is it up to relgion to do science's job for it? I haven't seen many scientists speak out against this bogus, bigoted claim.
Comment by MikeGene — April 15, 2007 @ 8:46 am
April 15th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Comment by neddy — April 15, 2007 @ 2:19 pm
April 15th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Why is it that so many critics have suddenly gone silent about this argument? Same arguments, different movements, thus different reaction. –MikeGene
I seem to recall several prominent scientists speaking out against Dawkins. Orr, Collins, etc. I still believe denouncing his work on a tactical level is simply the low-hanging fruit, and the most promising way to convince Dawkins and his ilk to reconsider their diatribes.. By attacking the tactics you don't have to wade through any of the territory that scientists generally fear to tread. And, more importantly, you are appealing to common goals between Dawkins and the wider evolution community.
Also, if Nisbet and Mooney agree with Dawkins pseudo-scientific critique of religion, I stand corrected as to their motives. I do not know if courtnix has any special insight into the matter of what they privately believe.
Comment by great_ape — April 15, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
April 16th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Hi great_ape,
You write:
Collins is a theist. I'm not sure what Orr is. But come to think of it, where is Ken Miller?
Anyway, I know that several prominent scientists have spoke out against Dawkins, but I am focused on two very specific points. The first one deals with the whether science can address the existence of God. Contrary to what the NCSE has been claiming for a decade, Dawkins says it can (the NCSE has chosen to ignore this development). Second, Dawkins makes a testable claim about people, labeling religious parents as child abusers. Why does the scientific community let him get away with this claim?
But I see little evidence for any promise here. If you read the words of people like Dawkins and Myers, there is the unequivocal "we're not going back into the closet" mindset.
But given the extremism of someone like Dawkins, we have to wonder what these "common goals" are.
Well, courtnix (a scientist and fellow science blogger) put the assertion on the table and he does seem well-connected to this group. Google tells us that Mooney graduated college with the full intention of becoming a "professional atheist" (his words) and Nisbet was the PR guy for a skeptics' organization. Furthermore, it's clear they disagree with the tactics of Dawkins and Harris (counter-productive?), but is there any reason to think they disagree with Dawkins' critique?
Comment by MikeGene — April 16, 2007 @ 9:00 pm