Atheist Scientist on NYTimes Evolution/ID Series: 2 Strikes, 1 Ball

[BurtWorm]

PZ Myers of Pharyngula.org:

http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/nyt_two_strikes_one_ball/

<Today's article> also reinforces a bias that there is something deplorable about atheist scientists—once again, they are the wicked little boogeymen shooed out of the spotlight, lest they frighten the good christian folk. They trot out the old 1997 Nature survey and emphasize that 40% of scientists believe in God…which is fine, but leaves hanging the complementary observation, that 60% don't. What we need is an article with the spine to note that, in the scientific community, atheists work productively with theists side by side, with no conflict and no animosity over their different views on religion, and that maybe it's the bigots who think atheism is evil who need to correct their attitudes. I don't care that Collins and Miller are religious—their virtue is their tolerance, something the creationists could emulate.

Well, their tolerance is good, but their religiosity does screw them up sometimes. I thought this conclusion was weak:

But he <Collins> said he believed that some scientists were simply unwilling to confront the big questions religion tried to answer. "You will never understand what it means to be a human being through naturalistic observation," he said. "You won't understand why you are here and what the meaning is. Science has no power to address these questions—and are they not the most important questions we ask ourselves?"

Grrr. The old "atheists are afraid of god" nonsense. I would just like to point out that religion has no power to address those questions, either—it's a palliative that deludes people into believing they have the answers. All too often, the answer they get back is to kill the unbelievers, not the kind of benevolent inspiration I suspect Collins is imagining.

I will say that this readers' opinion piece today, "Grasping the Depth of Time as a First Step in Understanding Evolution", was excellent (Josh agrees). Maybe what the Times needs to do is fire their journalists as tainted goods and start from scratch with a few more competent outsiders.

PS: The Times article is here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/national/23believers.html?hp&ex=1124856000&en=18c409315b60bf1e&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[Teaser]

1. error: statement, not argument

it's a palliative that deludes people into believing they have the answers

[BurtWorm]

2. Thanks for clearing that up.

:crazy: