Coyne: AAAS and Swamidass in WIRED Article

Hey if you can convinced kids that Ken Ham is full of crap, I am all for that. Let me know how I can help.

1 Like

Maybe reach out in your atheist networks and calm any fires that just got lit. I am not their enemy.

Coyne responds:

Thank you for this letter. I would like to know who told Concordia that Dawkins wasn’t representative of all scientists, though. Was it you, some other emissary of the AAAS, or somebody else. Second, my concern is not allayed, because by professing theistic evolution (saying that God created humans looking as if they evolved), you are mixing the science (human evolution) with an unsubstantiated religious claim (there is a God, and that God created humans). I cannot support anybody who goes into seminaries and mixes science and religion in this way, especially when you profess a form of theistic evolution that sticks God into the naturalistic process.

So no, my concerns are not allayed. You and the AAAS and Templeton are promulgating theological viewpoints on the dime of AAAS members. But I appreciate your attempt to explain.

And I respond:

These are legitimate concerns that deserve honest answers. I’ll answer some of the most pressing issues here in separate comments

I expect it will take time to work through all your concerns. Let us keep the lines of communication open.

2 Likes

I want to answer the questions about Dawkins. It took me some effort to track this down, but it appears to be from the Concordia Journal from Summer 2017 (Concordia Journal | Summer 2017 by Concordia Seminary - Issuu). The quotes in questions were written by two seminary professors. The context of the quote is important. Here is what was said:

"If scientists carry a caricature of Christianity filtered through the media, the same applies to many of us when it comes to science. The media is happy to give a voice to and promote “star-power scientists” like Richard Dawkins, but they do not represent all scientists just as the Westboro Baptist Church does not represent all Christians.

We ourselves run the risk of describing (and interpreting) the supporting data for evolutionary theory inaccurately, or we describe the theory in hundred-year- old terms. Pastors who misrepresent the status of the field and misrepresent what scientists are saying and not saying, run the risk of losing credibility among their congregants who have a strong scientific background. As in any discipline, we need to state the position of evolutionists in such a way that the scientist can say, “Yes, that’s exactly what I am saying.” Only then are we in a position to analyze it."


There were three other quotes about Dawkins in this journal issue that I am reproducing here:

“Contemporary materialists like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, from whom we heard earlier, will point to the way science offers comprehensive explanations of the universe and conclude that God is not only unnecessary for understanding the universe, but unnecessary altogether. Proponents of intelligent design agree with this logic but not the conclusion.”

“Some scientists even become militantly anti-religion or anti-Christianity. Religion is a threat to the system on which they stake their daily lives, their place within the universe, and their perception of meaning in the universe. People from Richard Dawkins to Stephen Hawking receive a level of media attention that gives the impression that all scientists are of like mind.”

“First, most scientists distinguish their work from the work of those who have
moved from science to philosophy such as Richard Dawkins. Thus, many scientists recognize the limited nature of their work; they are not seeking to make claims about everything much less about God. They are trying to understand how the various aspects of our world intersect and operate.”


Like most public consumption articles in the sciences, it seems critical to go to the primary literature to get the full story. In context, the sense in which Dawkins “does not represent all scientists” is stating the fact that not all scientists are atheists. This seems to be indisputably true.

The quote about Dawkins and Westboro is not equating the two as morally equivalent. Rather, they are saying that it is unfair to presume all scientists are anti-religious atheists. The comparison to Westboro makes sense to them, because they feel the media has unfairly painted all Christians like Westboro. This comparison might have made sense in the context of their internal conversation, but it does not translate the public context of the WIRED article.

Personally, I would not have put that quote in the WIRED article. It creates the false impression that Dawkins and Westboro are morally equivalent, when they certainly are not.

The larger picture I see in these quotes is that they are encourage their denomination to take seriously the findings of science. In my work with AAAS, I did not promote any specific theological viewpoint, but focused on explaining the best science in an understandable way. This seems to be precisely the mission of the AAAS, to promote public understanding of science, including evolutionary science.

And this comment too:

About mixing science and religion. This is an important concern. I also want to be sure that the integrity of science is maintained. I take guidance from Eugenie Scott from the NSCE who writes:

“Because creationists explain natural phenomena by saying “God performed a miracle,” we tell them that they are not doing science. This is easy to understand. The flip side, though, is that if science is limited by methodological [naturalism] because of our inability to control an omnipotent power’s interference in nature, both “God did it” and “God didn’t do it” fail as scientific statements. Properly understood, the principle of methodological [naturalism] requires neutrality towards God; we cannot say, wearing our scientist hats, whether God does or does not act.” Science and Religion, Methodology and Humanism | National Center for Science Education

When it comes to my scientific work, Dr. Coyne, I approach it just as do you, without any appeals to God or “Intelligence” or “Design.” I do not mix religious belief with science. None of the scientific conclusions I draw depend on theology or religious beliefs.

Outside of science, in non scientific work, it is legitimate to contemplate the larger implications of what we find. This is what Dawkins has done to great effect. His philosophical/personal (or whatever we want to call it) understanding of the implications of evolutionary science is that it affirms his atheism. This is entirely legitimate, and he has a right to explore these conclusions and make his case, as he has for years.

In the same way, outside science, in theological or philosophical or personal reflections, I can consider larger questions too. For example, it is legitimate to wonder if God was involved in our origins, as a theological exercise, not as an insert into a science textbook or scientific paper. I’m very careful to keep these theological reflections outside of science, maintaining the integrity of scientific work.

Of course, we are going to disagree about theology. That is fine. We don’t have to agree. We still have science as common ground. This is possible precisely because I am NOT mixing in religious views into science. I’m keeping them separate within the scientific context. This is why several atheist/agnostic scientists (e.g. @Art Hunt, @Dan_Eastwood, and others) and I find common ground rebutting critiques of evolutionary science together.

Agreeing with Scott, I see science as neutral on these questions, but I also see an invitation to larger conversations outside science itself. In that sense, I’m engaging the same sorts of larger conversations as Dawkins, and perhaps even yourself. We are not on different teams. We all care about putting the best and most accurate science into the public square. We all care about moving our society in a more just and kind direction. We will disagree on some things, but we also will agree on quite a bit.

1 Like

I see AAAS as, at least in part, representing the political interests of science. And for science to present the kind of militantly anti-theist position that Coyne often argues for, would be harmful to the political interests of science.

5 Likes

Since I got a mention there, I shipped in:

I think that finding common ground to discuss the meaning of science with people is far more productive than the endless argument of explaining why someone’s religion is not science. You don’t need to be religious to do that, it just takes some empathy and understanding.

1 Like

I’m following Coyne’s request not to post more comments there for now. Do you mind posting a link back to this thread? Some there have asked for it.

1 Like

If you do Facebook, check out the group Answers to Answers in Genesis. Lots of good Christians there who think Ham is full of it.

1 Like

Who asked? I can’t find it.

edit: Done!

1 Like

What about a neutral position for AAAS like its mission statement says. I have real concern about the long reach of Templeton funding. That is the problem. How can AAAS allow Templeton to come in and fund inniative within AAAS? I am an IEEE member, Templeton would not be allow to come in an support an outreach program in engineering to Christian students. It would be against the bylaw of the inherently secular organization. While I am not oppose for Dr. Swamidass to do science out reaches at Christian schools, him taking Templeton funding via AAAS can be problematic.

I am a member of that group on facebook. Thanks it is a good group.

2 Likes

Who gets to define “neutral”?

Not Templeton. I would think AAAS member will be applauded at this initiative. I predict general member of AAAS will call for it’s termination.

I don’t believe that Templeton is attempting to define “neutral”.

I much prefer the judgment of AAAS over the judgment of Jerry Coyne, on the question of what is neutral.

5 Likes

I want to be clear about this, I did not take templeton funding to do this. I recieved two or three very small honorariums that might trace funds back to Templeton. If there is a true conflict of interest here, I would gladly return these checks. I do not however believe there was a conflict.

One of the entertaining ironies of this situation is that Coyne and @patrick might have found common ground with Ken Ham on this one. He too was very concerned with Templeton funding collaboration between scientists and seminaries.

3 Likes

For full disclosure, please list dates, amounts, and source of the honorariums that you accepted. Thank you.

This was years ago, and I do not have records. My recollection is that this was less than $1000 total, if even that. I’m not even sure if this was from Concordia or AAAS. The number from AAAS might have been zero.

The more central point is that I recieved zero finding for this effort. Small honorariums do not count as funding.

2 Likes

Thank you for your openness and honesty.

2 Likes

I see you have been silenced at Jerry Coyne’s blog. Of course he can do whatever he likes on his blog, but to write a post criticising someone and then limit their ability to respond is bordering on the “authoritarian leftism” that he so often criticises. Unfortunately, he has built up a sort of echochambre there as you can see from most of the comments.
Disclaimer: although I agree with a lot of what he says on many topics, I have been banned from commenting there firstly for unintentionally insulting him (my fault - it was a joke that misfired), after which I was put in permanent moderation despite my sincere apology; and then totally banned for disagreeing with him for putting up the comments of posters he had just banned for criticism by his regular readers.

1 Like