Random thoughts about theistic evolutionism and "accommodationism"

I recently posted the following random thoughts on "The Intersection" blog of the Discovery magazine website. Most of these ideas have previously been posted on this blog but I decided to post all these ideas again here because they are now together in one place.

"Accommodationism" is the idea that the scientific community should be friendly towards the religious beliefs of theistic evolutionists.

==================================

The National Center for Science Education not only does not present the atheists’ views on the issue of the compatibility of science and religion, but does not present the fundies’ views on that issue. The NCSE is no good as a one-stop source of information about that issue.

The conclusion section of the Kitzmiller v. Dover opinion says, “[evolution theory] in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.” That is a personal religious or philosophical belief that has no place in a judicial opinion. The Darwinists lucked out in the Dover case by getting a crackpot activist judge. They may not be so lucky next time.

Here is PZ Myers’ blunt opinion of accommodationism:
.

What I really object to is the goofy “if you don’t be nice to god belief, the churchy scientists will take their ball home”. I metaphorically puke on the shoes of anyone who tries to make that argument.

William Jennings Bryan on theistic evolutionists [link]:

If those who teach Darwinism and evolution, as applied to man, insist that they are neither agnostics nor atheists, but are merely interpreting the Bible differently from orthodox Christians, what right have they to ask that their interpretation be taught at public expense?

The following quotation from Winston Churchill is a good description of theistic evolutionists who try to appease the atheistic evolution establishment: “An appeaser is someone who feeds a crocodile in the hope that it will eat him last.”

Someone who interprets the gospel literally but does not interpret the bible’s creation story literally is a kind of “cafeteria Christian.” To be interpreted literally, both the creation story and the gospel require belief in the supernatural. However, whereas the creation story is straightforward, the gospel is full of illogic, inconsistencies, ambiguities, and unintelligibility. Also, the creation story is consistent with a belief in an all-powerful god but the god of the gospel is a weak, limited god who must struggle against Satan for control of the world. Hence, an otherwise rational person who believes in the supernatural should have a greater tendency to interpret the creation story literally than interpret the gospel literally.

Geocentrism, like creationism, is supported by the bible, but the fundies accept heliocentrisn but not evolution because they find the scientific evidence to be persuasive for heliocentrism but not for evolution. There is a lot of evidence for an old earth and some evidence for common descent, but the net evidence is actually against an evolutionary process that was driven solely by natural genetic variation and natural selection.
.
Darwinists believe that the fundies reject evolution in order to maintain a belief in the inerrancy of the bible. But that belief in biblical inerrancy has already been undermined by the bible’s erroneous teaching of geocentrism.

Another Darwinist myth is that all they have to do is persuade the clergy that evolution is compatible with religion and then the faithful will follow the clergy like sheep following a Judas goat. The infamous Clergy Letter Project is an example of this kind of thinking. But, for example, a lot of Catholics don’t follow the church’s very strict teachings about abortion, so why should Catholics follow the church’s teaching about evolution?

With all of this talk about the relationship between evolution and religion, it is going to be difficult for Darwinists at the next monkey trial to argue that evolution has no religious implications.

I believe that the religious implications of evolution are so strong that it is unconstitutional to dogmatically teach it in public schools without at least a disclaimer statement. Unfortunately, evolution-disclaimer statements were struck down in three court cases — Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish, Selman v. Cobb County, and Kitzmiller v. Dover. However, Kitzmiller was not appealed and the other two decisions came close to being reversed on appeal.

IMO one of the big reasons why some Darwinists are telling other Darwinists who are discussing this issue of the compatibility of evolution and religion to shut their big fat mouths the hell up is a fear that the mere fact that Darwinists are even discussing this issue could be used against them in a future monkey trial.
.