Jerry Coyne has another go at the NCSE and BCSE

[jon_12091]

Reading between the lines I don't think that being told to STFU, about the merits of atheism and the irrationality of faith, when in involved a pleural campaign against creationism counts as an 'attack' unless you've got a particularly thin skin and an overinflated sense of your own importance. I can't help but think that the 'New Atheist' movement is just as riddled with ego and irrationality as Creationism. Looking at it slightly differently such bits of propaganda could influence some atheists to withdraw or not become involved in groups like the BCSE because somehow they shouldn't be seen with theists - now that is unsettling in more ways than one. Though as Brian notes its really just a storm in an blog-shaped internet teacup. I just hope it remains that way.

[dannyno]

Peter Henderson:

as far as I'm aware Dan, the BCSE is entirely neutral on the subject, welcoming into their ranks people of any religion and none.

and that's how it should be.

Agreed. That is how it *should* be.

But that isn't how it sometimes looks.

I'm aware of the origins of the BCSE, I know you have been and are attacked as an atheist front, and I understand the importance of maintaining a neutral stance as an organisation. So do your atheist critics.

Science shouldn't be used to promote either religion, or Atheism, since it takes absolutely no position on the supernatural.

I don't think you can really mean this, as a general observation, since it is evidently false.

I'd agree with you if you said that the N or B CSEs shouldn't be used to promote either religion or atheism, that they take no position on the issue. That isn't where we currently are, but I agree that should be the principle. I'll presume that's what you really meant to say.

That's the problem I have with Coyne, Myers, Dawkins and Rosenhouse. They're using science to promote Atheism and attack Christianity. The NCSE are quite correct in pointing this out.

But you just this second said, literally a couple of sentences ago, that the BCSE is "entirely neutral" on the subject, and "that's how it should be".

But here you are advocating that the CSEs should *attack* atheists for using science to "promote" atheism.

Why should the CSEs do this, if neutrality is the ideal?

Coyne's stratagey isn't ging to work I'm afraid

His strategy?

Coyne's suggested strategy for the CSEs is the same as your's: neutrality.

His book on evolution mentions religion, if I remember correctly, not at all.

He is a campaigner for atheism, and will continue to campaign for atheism.

All he's saying is: "please stop criticising me for campaigning for atheism". Be neutral.

Simple as that, really.

Dan

[cathy]

As a disclaimer, this is my opinion only not the BCSEs.
I'm not exactly sure what Jerry Coyne is on about but he's certainly got his knickers in a twist about something which seems to be the fact that religious neutrality means anyone that shares your aims can join whether they believe in God or not.

I don't really inhabit the same intellectual stratosphere as the rest of you so just to let you know out here in my boring unintellectual real world most atheists haven't read the God Delusion (I have, a friend has), or if they have it hasn't been the reason they've become atheists. Most of us (whatever our beliefs) are at best vague, woolly and rather indifferent. Religion doesn't often crop up as a topic unless it is a specific issue like the bloke with the cross in his employers van. Most have only a vague notion of who Richard Dawkins is or what he stands for. At best he is the nice atheist from the telly. People doing biology are probably more aware. I suspect if I polled a random sample of my friends they wouldn't have a clue who Jerry Coyne is.

Most of us if pushed will be either mildly atheist or mildly not. Of those that do attend church/mosque/gurdwara most are not extreme and do not preach. Amongst the mums, most of us avoid the creationist mum because she is irritating and makes us argue with her strange beliefs. The other mum who atttends the creationist church no longer talks about it much because she knows it'll lead to arguments. Nobody else really fits their religious stereotype, the muslims aren't downtrodden burkha wearers the catholics aren't trailing hundreds of kids behind them or staying in unhappy marriages. None are totally uncritical of their religion (bar the creationist).

I'm not really looking at my world as some kind of religious utopia either. Thats just the way it happens to be. There are really vile things going on within some religions nobody disputes that. However sometimes on the Richard Dawkins site you can't help feeling that they want to assume that all religious people are what the extremes of their religion suggests they should be. if they are not I can't help feeling that some on the RDF site think they should leave it.

In my daughters form at school all her muslim friends (its a girls schools so all are girls) are oxbridge/medicine/pharmacy/engineering/law bound (if they get the grades and they are very focused). They are not bound for arranged marriages and a life of subservience and they are often following in their mothers footsteps. Nearby there are schools where a percentage of the muslim girls who, if they pass exams, won't be going on, who will be shifted off to Pakistan to marry someone they've never met who will expect subservience and obediance, who will abuse them and their lives are not going to be anywhere near as good. And honour killings and other crap does exist sometimes on our doorstep (not literally). I can't help thinking that the RDF would only really want to hear about the latter group and would almost deny the existence of the former, claim they are not real muslims or claim they should leave their faith as a mark of respect and solidarity with their 'sisters' round the corner. However they are muslims, they fast at Ramadam, some wear a hijab and if they don't wear trousers their skirts are a little longer than the non muslims (and believe me if you saw what my daughter wears that isn't very long at all). And they do care quite passionately about the wrongs done to muslim girls as some are from families that have fled oppressive islamic states. However unlike some of the users of the RDF they do actually have more of an awareness of what that abuse is likely to be and in what sorts of cultures different types of abuse are likely to occur which puts them in a much better position to actually deal with it. And I don't think they particularly want to leave their religion.

So if what I've seen of the users on the Jerry Coyne site and sometimes on the RDF sites is representative (and I'm not sure it is but it certainly applies to some of the users) I should automatically assume that a persons religion defines everything about them regardless of culture or background and reject them as idiots or oppressors straight away? Even if my own limited experience tells me thats incorrect? And I should assume that Michael, Peter and Jon are closet evil creationists? At the start of the God Delusion however RD does state there are religious people that are lovely and tolerant and if all religious people were like that he wouldn't be writing the book. Some of the users of his website don't seem to have read that bit.

The only worry about all of this is if it puts atheists off. I'm not sure how it would BUT on the Jerry Coyne site they are claiming the BCSE is not religously neutral, By that I think what they mean is it is not specifially atheist. However if that lie is contained then why should it put anyone off? There are plenty of atheists in the BCSE.

What really bugs me is that sometimes I can't help feeling that some of the people on the Richard Dawkins site have just replaced god with Richard Dawkins. Their admiration for what he has undoubtedly achieved is way disproportionate to reality and he can do no wrong which is impossble for any human being-no matter how much you admire them. Their admiration also seems to be totally uncritical which does put me in mind sometimes of the blind faith of creationists. I also can't help feeling they'd rather a bit of fundamentalism crept in to religion so they could hasten it's downfall and jump up and down in high dudgeon saying 'we told you so, they're all evil religious things' regardless of any collateral damage. And what really bugs me is I can't actually see what any of them have achieved in practical terms?

Anyway I'll put in my disclaimer again that that is my personal opinion and not the BCSEs. Also I have no power or influence in the BCSE nor do they take any notice of my uninformed ramblings unless they're ever useful which is rarely. So if anyone is hoping to use this to further the anti BCSE sentiment with RD or JC don't bother.

[Roger Stanyard]

Are you bovvered?

It would be the understatement of all times to say I am bothered about the issue. I'm bloody furious.

I have never in my life seen such a mob baying for blood. Not a single one of the hundreds of posters had even the slightest courage or balls to defend Nick Matzke. He has done a huge amount for sound science but, no, lets get him and call him to account for slighting Richard Dawkins. Guess who whinged about being slighted - Richard Dawkins. Guess what, he turns out to be a thousand times more offensive than Nick Matzke. Didums takes offensive and then starts screaming.

There's not a milligram of balls between the lot of them.


Still it's up to the BCSE members if they want the BCSE to support Richard Dawkins, Gerry Coyne and a mob on a blog.

[cathy]

But you just this second said, literally a couple of sentences ago, that the BCSE is "entirely neutral" on the subject, and "that's how it should be".

But here you are advocating that the CSEs should *attack* atheists for using science to "promote" atheism.

Why should the CSEs do this, if neutrality is the ideal?

Not quite sure what you mean by this?

His book on evolution mentions religion, if I remember correctly, not at all.

Thats not strictly true is it! I've just read it. To quote from the introduction: re evolution-"Nor must it promote atheism, for enlightened religion has always found a way to accommodate the advances of science. In fact understanding evolution should surely deepen and enrich our appreciation of the living world and our place in it". Page xix in the hardback edition. So as far as I can see he is saying atheists shouldn't be using science to promote atheism? Science is just science it doesn't promote beliefs or lack of them. Until it can actually measure the supernatural world. It has disproved the book of genesis cos it has the tools to suggest how the natural world came into being. Oh and what exactly is the last chapter of his book about?

To me it reads like someone reassuring religious folk about evolution and warns against relying to heavily on the very new and difficult to test area of evolutionary psychology. Again to quote: "There is an increasing (and disturbing) tendency of psychologists, biologists and philosophers to Darwinize every aspect of human behaviour., turning its study into a scientific parlour game. But imaginative reconstructions of how things might have evolved are not science". After a very long description of how we don't yet have the tools to adequately describe behaviour he then says.."There is no reason, then, to see ourselves as marionettes dancing on the strings of evolution" lots more about behaviours that clearly have do have an evolutionary basis before saying "And although evolution operates in a purposeless, materialistic way that doesn't mean that our lives have no purpose. Whether through religion or secular thought......I certainly make no claim to be the Milton of Darwinism but I can at least try to dispel the misconceptions that frighten people away from evolution....."

All he's saying is: "please stop criticising me for campaigning for atheism". Be neutral.

As far as I'm aware nobody on this site has actually criticised him at all ever until I just criticised his blog a minute ago. And that was after seeing the folk there rip the BCSE to shreds. Folk campaining for atheism or religion outside of BCSE are fine. Here it is prohibited and frowned upon when it appears on the forum. So if he is campaigning for atheism that has nothing to do with the BCSE nor NCSE.I If he's specifically hijacking or targetting campaigns to keep creationism out of science and schools to further atheism (which I really don't know, as until I found his bookl in the library I had never heard of him) than that will be being unhelpful and they have a right to say so. However I don't know how this argument started so can't commetn.The BCSE is being attacked by religious groups for being atheistic and by atheist groups for being religious. If they're getting everyones back up than they must be relligiously neutral.

[dannyno]

Michael:

The Coyne/Dawkins appraoch will simply advance creationism, as "evolutionary" Christians will be rejected by many Christians who clearly object to atheism.

The Coyne/Dawkins "approach" being what?

So far as I can see, they think that it's fine to oppose creationism from a theologically neutral point of view. So you can't mean that.

So I take it you mean their activist and campaigning atheism. So OK, that's a point of view. The issue is whether organisations like the B and N CSEs should take a line on it.

To get rid of all religion will fail without doubt and Coyne/Dawkins will simply flare up a culture wars scenario. There are already signs of this in the anglican church

Clearly religion isn't going away any day soon, I agree.

Maybe there already *is* a culture war. Maybe some people *want* a culture war. May some people think they can win it.

Should the B and N CSEs take sides?


Brian Jordan:

It's a figment of someone's imagination, somewhere in the blogosphere. It never happened.

What never happened? Attacks on atheists for attacking religion? *That* "never happened"?

Brian, it's just happened here in this very discussion!


Psioiordinary:

Can you point out to us where the BCSE has had a go at atheists?

That's not my battle. I don't think the BCSE *has* had a go at atheists, as such. Jerry Coyne's issue is mainly with the NCSE, and as I understand it the BCSE only gets a mention because Roger Stanyard intervened in an argument about all of this somewhere.

What interests me is that there seems little understanding of the respective positions in this argument. I'm seeing stereotyping going on. Dawkins, for example, is not opposed to working with theists against creationism, and has done so.

I have no argument with a neutrality approach for an organisation like the BCSE, but I don't necessarily agree that campaigning atheism outside the BCSE is counter-productive.

I'm all *for* a joined-up approach. What worries me is that atheists in the mould of Dawkins and Coyne - two of the most effective and distinguished pro-evolution writers we have - are being excluded from the joined-up approach.

Clearly we need all the allies we can get. But doesn't that mean we need Dawkins and Coyne?

I point out that creationists quote Dawkins (

I'll take you at face value when you say that this is just an empirical observation, not an attack. And we all know it to be true. I'm sure Dawkins does.

The question is: how should an organisation like the BCSE respond when creationists quote atheists when they're trying to prove that evolution is an anti-religious plot?

We've seen how some members of this forum respond: Dawkins should shut up, effectively. What does the BCSE say?


jon_12091:

I don't think that being told to STFU, about the merits of atheism and the irrationality of faith, when in involved a pleural campaign against creationism counts as an 'attack'

What does "involved" mean? That's a serious question.

An organisation like the BCSE shouldn't be debating the merits of atheism and the irrationality of faith, and any public spokesman who did, in their organisational capacity, is out of order and should probably STFU.

No argument from me on that.

But what's happening is a wider attack. Such as your:

I can't help but think that the 'New Atheist' movement is just as riddled with ego and irrationality as Creationism.

What we're seeing is an attack on campaigning atheism in general, for "not helping", or for various personality flaws as in the above case.

Whether campaigning atheists are helping or not is besides the point. The point is that such attacks destroy your neutrality on the question of religion.

When I see posts like this one (http://bcseweb.blogspot.com/2011/04/view-from-pulpit-pope.html) on the BCSE blog, I wonder why it's there, if BCSE is really neutral. Because that's the BCSE dipping its toe into theology. Isn't it?

such bits of propaganda could influence some atheists to withdraw or not become involved in groups like the BCSE because somehow they shouldn't be seen with theists

There are atheists who refuse to associate with theists, even in combatting creationism, but they are a tiny minority, and Dawkins and Coyne and the other "new atheists" are not amongst them. This is simply not an issue, and I don't know why you float it as one.

The reason Coyne and others are upset is because they are being told off by the NCSE (and now figures from the BCSE) for "not helping". And this should be none of the CSEs business, it's theology. The other thing that upsets Coyne and others is the orientation of the NCSE, and now apparently the BCSE, towards promoting liberal theology. Again, this should be none of the business of the CSEs.

I hope you're right that these disputes can be resolved and are "storms in teacups". I'm not so sure, not least because of the incomprehension I'm seeing over here with respect to why anyone is upset in the first place.

And with the BCSE promoting the Pope's teachings on evolution and Martin Rees' strictures against anti-religious activity, I suspect this will run and run.

Dan

[dannyno]

Cathy:

I'm not exactly sure what Jerry Coyne is on about but he's certainly got his knickers in a twist about something which seems to be the fact that religious neutrality means anyone that shares your aims can join whether they believe in God or not.

on the Jerry Coyne site they are claiming the BCSE is not religously neutral, By that I think what they mean is it is not specifially atheist.

With respect, you are completely and utterly wrong on both counts. But as you admit, you're not sure what Coyne is on about anyway. However, Coyne and others have specifically addressed both your points, clearly and without ambiguity.

They are not opposed to organisational religious neutrality. And, therefore, they do not insist that the N and B CSEs must be specifically atheist.

We need to be completely clear about that, because otherwise nothing else will make sense.

Coyne would support a religiously neutral NCSE.

His problem is that he doesn't think the NCSE *is* religiously neutral. He thinks it endorses liberal theology against forthright atheism.

He wants it to *be* religiously neutral.

Dan

[cathy]

Roger wrote: would be the understatement of all times to say I am bothered about the issue. I'm bloody furious.

I have never in my life seen such a mob baying for blood. Not a single one of the hundreds of posters had even the slightest courage or balls to defend Nick Matzke. He has done a huge amount for sound science but, no, lets get him and call him to account for slighting Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins has changed somewhat. I used to really admire him. I can't help thinking that all the adulation has gone to his head. I don't know what the slight to Richard Dawkins was but why can't he defend himself? If the slight was justified or slightly justified he and his followers should argue the actual point or think about it. If it wasnt' they should say why it wasn't. They don't seem to be.

Roger wrote: Still it's up to the BCSE members if they want the BCSE to support Richard Dawkins, Gerry Coyne and a mob on a blog.

If you did bring them on board and something like the Exeter school incident cropped up I predict they would say a) 'its her own fault for sending her child to a faith school'. b) 'thats what all faith schools teach-no don't come here with your facts it is' and c) 'lets not bother dealing with this issue that we can realistically address, lets go for the totally unrealistic one of closing the school down, whilst we're at it lets close them all down. Anyway must go and fulfil my new atheist duties and berate a catholic for not having 21 children and a husband, tsk now us atheists are having to do the churches jobs telling folk how they should be behaving tsk tsk whats the world coming to when you can't find a decent stereotype to rant about" And yes I know I just have but it isn't that far from the truth.

Thats just what I think they'd say if they were part of BCSE. That in no way reflects the opinions of the BCSE nor NCSE.

[Roger Stanyard]

What upsets them is that there seems to be little recognition of that issue and why it is important.

Dan

There has been a huge amount of recognition of the issue within the BCSE. There were bitter disputes about the matter when we first launched back in 2006 (before the New Atheist movement really started).

Like it or not I really did have that "conversation" with Larry Moran where Moran told be that RD would consider offering us financial support if we did not attack religion. It wasn't a casual conversation either. Moran specifically pulled me to one side to talk in confidence.

Worse still for the claims about me lying is that we have now dug out the email exchanges between our committee members at the time (around 13/14 Oct 2006) and they seem to confirm what I reported back.

The silly thing about it is that we weren't bothered about the alleged offer/suggestion. We'd already made up our minds about not attacking religion. Our position was based on advice we got from the NCSE, Lenny Flank and associates over at DebunkCreation and the model of a group called ScienceJustScience. Even then there was considerable hostility, amongst atheists, towards parts of the new atheist movement.

Which goes back to our basic issues - we are a single issue organisation. New Atheists are free to call upon us to somehow support their movement, as are movements like the secularists, humanists and so it. We can do if there is common ground which match our single issue objectives. But only to that extent.

From a purely personal viewpoint, I am concerned that we cannot serve two masters, so to speak. We are either a single issue organisation or we collapse. I maybe wrong but when it comes to New Atheism, the evidence seems to suggest I may be right. We've received bugger all support or thanks from the likes of Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, you and the mob on a blog at WEIT and I would not want personally to be even remotely associated with them, let alone work with them.

[dannyno]

cathy

Not quite sure what you mean by this?

Well, help me out, what did you have a particular problem understanding? I'll clarify if I can.

I said:

His book on evolution mentions religion, if I remember correctly, not at all.

Cathy says:

Thats not strictly true is it!

Well, I was careful to say "If I remember correctly".

You've very kindly corrected me, and the situation is even better than I remembered. I've gone back to my own copy too.

So here we have Coyne, in his book on evolution, saying quite clearly that evolution is not necessarily atheistic. I don't know how much more clarity from him is required on the issue.

So as far as I can see he is saying atheists shouldn't be using science to promote atheism?

Er, no, that's not what he's saying. That would be ridiculous. What he's saying is that evolution is not *necessarily* atheistic.

So if he is campaigning for atheism that has nothing to do with the BCSE nor NCSE.

Agreed. Yet he feels the NCSE or those associated with it are making it their business.

If he's specifically hijacking or targetting campaigns to keep creationism out of science and schools to further atheism (which I really don't know, as until I found his bookl in the library I had never heard of him) than that will be being unhelpful and they have a right to say so.

He's not doing that.

If they're getting everyones back up than they must be relligiously neutral.

That doesn't follow.

It's a possibility that one side or the other is right. Or that there are other sides to the argument.

Dan

[Roger Stanyard]

Cathy:

I'm not exactly sure what Jerry Coyne is on about but he's certainly got his knickers in a twist about something which seems to be the fact that religious neutrality means anyone that shares your aims can join whether they believe in God or not.

on the Jerry Coyne site they are claiming the BCSE is not religously neutral, By that I think what they mean is it is not specifially atheist.

With respect, you are completely and utterly wrong on both counts. But as you admit, you're not sure what Coyne is on about anyway. However, Coyne and others have specifically addressed both your points, clearly and without ambiguity.

They are not opposed to organisational religious neutrality. And, therefore, they do not insist that the N and B CSEs must be specifically atheist.

We need to be completely clear about that, because otherwise nothing else will make sense.

Coyne would support a religiously neutral NCSE.

His problem is that he doesn't think the NCSE *is* religiously neutral. He thinks it endorses liberal theology against forthright atheism.

He wants it to *be* religiously neutral.

Dan

Jerry Coyne can support whoever he wants. If he wants to support the NCSE, so be it. The NCSE is not the BCSE and quite frankly, his position on supporting NCSE is irrelevent. He's never supported the BCSE, never contacted us, never given any thanks. It's just hot air talk. Withdrawing his support from the BCSE means precisely nothing. He can wave his arms in the air and make as much noise as he likes on his blog but the BCSE is, on his own actions, not his business. He doesn't give a stuff about the BCSE.

[Roger Stanyard]

So here we have Coyne, in his book on evolution, saying quite clearly that evolution is not necessarily atheistic. I don't know how much more clarity from him is required on the issue.

So what? It's hardly a great intellectual insight. Just about everyone here knows that without Coyne pointing it out.

[cathy]

What never happened? Attacks on atheists for attacking religion? *That* "never happened"?

Brian, it's just happened here in this very discussion!

Actually this is an open forum so my opinion and others expressed here do not reflect the BCSEs stance on anything. If such things were the case than the regular appearance of creationist nutters and folk attacking atheism on the RDF site would be an indication that it supported creationism and attacked atheism.

I'm not sure how RD and JC could join the campaign anymore. If they wanted to avoid alienating their followers it would have to be on their own terms which seems to include the need to state that any tolerant non creationist christian is wrong and the creationist interpretation of the bible is the correct one for christians. Dawkins has said so on numerous occasions and its quoted all the time by creationists.

That is fine if that is their view but realistically it would hinder a campaign to get rid of creationism when most people aren't that offended by moderate religion generally and some christians would then feel obliged to choose. And RD would have to campaign on one single issue and keep quiet about his antipathy to other issues like faith schools or girls wearing the hijab or any general religious belief. I'm not sure RDs supporters would accept that. In that respect he has become no different to some religious leaders who can no longer fight creationism in case it alienates their congregations. He's sort of become a victim of his own success.

I started off with huge admiration for him for taking on the worst excesses of religion. That has slowly evaporated, mainly because I have seen him distort the truth occassionally to further his aim.

New atheists won't get rid of religion. Any strong ideological stance just tends to strengthen the opposition to it and draw in new supporters. Hence creationists are most likely to create atheists. Like creationism the appeal of very strong ideological stances is limited to a minority who will lap it up. Take a look at atheist Derren Browns programme on faith healing for true religious neutrality and an example of how to deal with real issues without recourse to personal ideology.

[dannyno]

Roger Stanyard:

There has been a huge amount of recognition of the issue within the BCSE. There were bitter disputes about the matter when we first launched back in 2006 (before the New Atheist movement really started).

I know. I remember Blackshadow and the origins of the BCSE, I remember the arguments. They're one of the reasons I kept it at arms length. It's partly because I'm aware of (some of) the early history that I'm surprised at the position we're now in.

Like it or not I really did have that "conversation"

I'm not going there: whatever was or was not said by whom to whomever else is not the issue I'm interested in discussing. If people can't remember conversations accurately (seems someone can't!), I'm not going to turn that into a dispute.

We'd already made up our minds about not attacking religion.

It's the right position, no question about that.

The question is whether anti-creationist groups should be attacking anti-religionists.

Which goes back to our basic issues - we are a single issue organisation. New Atheists are free to call upon us to somehow support their movement, as are movements like the secularists, humanists and so it. We can do if there is common ground which match our single issue objectives. But only to that extent.

This is what I mean about a lack of comprehension.

Nobody (well, there might be somebody, but not Coyne or anyone like that) among the "New Atheists" is calling upon you to support them.

Nor should you.

What they're calling for is neutrality. Don't attack religion, but don't attack anti-religion either. Neutrality.

I'm not saying you are prominent in attacking anti-religion. Whether you are or are not, the question is what your position on the question is.

We are either a single issue organisation or we collapse.

Absolutely. Stay a single issue organisation!

But are you going to take neutrality seriously?

We've received bugger all support or thanks from the likes of Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, you and the mob on a blog at WEIT and I would not want personally to be even remotely associated with them, let alone work with them.

"you and the mob"?

I'll let that pass.

I'm also not getting into whether you've had the support you should have had. Perhaps you haven't. You're certainly burning your bridges now, however.

I was just glad to find you're still going. What I'm interested in is whether you are neutral on the religious question or not. It seems not.

Dan

[dannyno]

A bit more tree-clearing required, it seems.

Roger:

He [Coyne] doesn't give a stuff about the BCSE.

I wonder whether he had ever heard of it before. I don't know.

Perhaps you're right, and it doesn't really matter whether he does or does not support the CSEs. But the wider issue does matter.

I said:

So here we have Coyne, in his book on evolution, saying quite clearly that evolution is not necessarily atheistic.

Roger replied:

So what? It's hardly a great intellectual insight. Just about everyone here knows that without Coyne pointing it out.

Who said it was a great intellectual insight?

"So what?" Well, he's being accused of wanting to turn to the NCSE into an atheist organisation! I think his views on whether evolution is necessarily atheistic or not are relevant to that, don't you?


Cathy:

this is an open forum so my opinion and others expressed here do not reflect the BCSEs stance on anything.

I understand that, and I didn't say anything otherwise. I'm perfectly well aware that this forum is not an official BCSE mouthpiece.

I merely pointed out, against the claim that nobody was attacking atheists, that people had done so right here, in this very thread. And that, therefore, it was wrong to claim that nobody attacked atheists.

Dan