Yup, a fair comment on Creationism, but most Christians are not Creationists.
To some atheist scientists like Jerry Coyne or PZ Myers attacks on any religion should the the order of the day as “one cannot be a scientist and a Christian” To them the biggest sin is accommodationism, which allows mutual respect and even common ground between science and faith. And so any scientist who “accommodates” like Paul Braterman or Pigliucci has let the side down and need almost as much bashing as a Christian scientist like Francis Collins, or even a young earth creationist.
I find the extreme atheist approach wrong for many reasons;
- It is totally disrespectful
- It closes down any meaningful discussions on science and religion
- It presents a false polarisation of atheistic science OR Young Earth Creationism
- it plays into the hands of Creationists
Here’s Paul’s introduction to his re-blog. I suppose Paul frequently sins the sin of accommodationism, and I chuckle at his use of the word “sin”. However neither Paul nor Pigliucci spend their time knocking religion, but rather note that many beleivers are competent scientists. That does not stop them being critical of religion or Christianity in particular, but do so in a decent manner. At times this is quite robust as some of Paul’s comments on my blog are. That is totally reasonable as they are always totally amicable.
Respectfully reblogged from Pigliucci’s Plato’s Footnote. Historically, an accommodationist was a believer who, like William Buckland (Dean of Westminster), or the Free Church of Scotland theologian Henry Drummond, sought to accommodate their interpretation of their faith to scientific discoveries. More recently, the term has been used to refer to those who neglect to sufficiently disparage religion while expounding science, a neglect that some consider sinful.
Reblogged on WordPress.com
Source: In defense of accommodationism