Nope you misread me. I was merely pointing out that some people compromise and some don't. Some issues are so blatently black and white (eg evolution or the age of the earth) that you cannot compromise with people stupid or ignorant enough to believe otherwise. Others are a matter of personal feeling and you can either join together and fight one issue on which you do agree or decide the personal differences are too great and not.was objecting to the equivalence you were setting up between gnus and creationists on the basis that neither seemed to compromise much. Rhetorically what you were saying was "gnus and creationists are as bad as each other". I think that is ridiculous.
I must admit creationism is my limit-I couldn't join them on any issue no matter how strongly I felt without telling them how stupid they were so I'm not unsympathic to Dawkins whose limit is religion in general-though I disagree on that. I've tried arguing politely, even wildly overcompensating in finding nice ways to say moron to our resident creationist troll and creationists generally just to get them to listen to reasonable scientific argumentss, and still ended up being incredibly rude-because at the end of the day there are only so many ways to call someone a lying deluded idiot politely. And he called me the devils agent or an agent of satan. So I wouldn't take what you perceive to be my overt antipathy to you too seriously.
Nobody on the planet could be as bad as creationists (well within reason obviously there are worse thing eg the taliban-but creationist theology accompnying their nonsense is generally pretty unpleasant).
Not sure what you mean here. I was chatting to a friend last night who pointed out he'd managed to get through the whole of his degree, Phd and ten years of research knowing nothing about the philosophy of science (and never using the word paradigm if Marcs reading). I got through my degree knowing nothing about it nor thinking about it(philosophy that is not my degree-though wish i'd thought about that more).Well, I think it bears some further unpacking. I don't agree that science is irrelevant to either philosophy in general or the question of the existence of god in particular. Nor would lots of theologians, of course.
Science is very clearly defined in what it shows. Radiometric dating shows the age of the earth and allows more than adequate time for evolution. The genome and fossils likewise show transitions and support evolution. issues beyond the science stray into philosophical areas and science becomes nebulous with the same fact being used to support differing opinions. Evidence leads to conclusions about that evidence, those conclusions support theories that are tested to destruction and stand or fall on on the science and absence of alternatives. Evolution is strong and in being so has disproved any chance of a literal interpretation of the bible (or currently any alternative scientific explanation). Science is also a subject that changes only when the evidence does. Philosophy can use science for philosophical arguments but with limitations. Science doesn't need philosophy.
But what is the objection to the moderate anglican church which seems reasonable and led by an educated group of people and shares the values of most decent people. The objections to creationist, homophobic, fake healing nutcases is easy to define on about any level. Surely you have to recognise the distinction and how easy it is to draw it.they object to religion in general, or they complain that objection to religion in general is - if not harmful to the narrow campaign - just plain wrong or daft or counterproductive or impossible. And that then becomes a batter about who is welcome where.
Yes that would be useful wouldn't it instead of all this shilly shallying. There seem to be about three different definitions in that letter. If Coyne is taking the first one and suggesting I've joined an organisation that in any way pretends to respect creationism I'll sue for libel (if I could).wish Dawkins would write something more detailed about this issue,
As for Coyne's letter it is ridiculous. The letter has led to such a low level of debate on some of the sites (JCs and pharyngual) involved and damaged relations between groups. On the pharyngula site it seems the bearded guy endorsed it and en masse everyone had to agree or get shouted down with reams of personal abuse rather than reasoned debate. Not a sign of a strong argument. T'was a revlelation to me. To see so many mass debaters gathered in one place.
