tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post1652630625915038636..comments2024-03-19T09:06:21.507-04:00Comments on Irtiqa: Friday Journal Club: "Science, Religion, and Society"Salman Hameedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04327330113822656571noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-57299735049099676062012-08-18T17:30:32.474-04:002012-08-18T17:30:32.474-04:00Indeed, this might have been fine as an opinion pi...Indeed, this might have been fine as an opinion piece. A 2-pager somewhere that set out something to be aware of, or that had as its goal a highlighting of a potential cause of evolution rejection. Because, as you wrote above, Coyne's piece begins with an interesting question: why is evolution rejection in the US so high?<br /><br />An opinion piece would have highlit the interesting question and covered the elements that make it interesting- in this case, many of the polls that Coyne cites in this piece. What Coyne has attempted to do in this piece, instead, is argue that Religion (capital "R") is the answer to his question. In addition to his definitional difficulties (he seems to take it not only as obvious that there are many religions, but also that no religion promotes science or evolution), it is difficult to understand why he picked the evidence that he has.<br /><br />As I commented above, Coyne argues that there is little evidence that "accomodationism" works. But where is <i> his </i> argument to support that claim? Are we to see efforts such as the NCSE's as failures simply because we have not seen a decline in evolution rejection over the decades? I would argue that the polls from Gallup and the Pew Center show equal support for the idea that we are simply pursuing a strategy with too little understanding and support!<br /><br />This runs parallel to your question about Coyne's correlation of acceptance of human evolution with the SSS. Is there supposed to be something obvious here where highly successful societies become such because of substantial evolution acceptance? Perhaps evolution acceptance follows from living in the cultures that are geared towards scoring highly on the SSS. I don't see Coyne's argument for why the causes of evolution acceptance have to run one way or the other, which I guess puts me in agreement with Rosenau.<br /><br />Either way, what this paper needs is field work (and not the kind easily ripped from NORC or Gallup's servers) to test some of Coyne's claims. It's perplexing that a biologist of his caliber would make so many arguments without taking the time to gather data. I suppose that he simply would prefer to traffic in quantitative, operationalized rankings such as the SSS than with the messy, humanized data generated by qualitative research.Donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02733799054106197853noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-14678090883929278772012-08-18T14:23:35.281-04:002012-08-18T14:23:35.281-04:00Don,
I think this paper would have been fine as ...Don,<br /><br /> I think this paper would have been fine as an opinion piece. The problem comes in when trying to isolate religion as the prime cause for evolution rejection.<br /><br />By the way, it is interesting that he is using opinions on evolution to explore culture and values. This is something that we are doing as well with our project on evolution in the Muslim world. But we are at least trying to not straight-jacket the responses into a particular category. In fact, we are struck by the range of complex ways people think about evolution, society, science and religion. <br /><br />One more point on the paper: I don't find a good reason why is there a figure showing a correlation of acceptance of human evolution with Successful Societies Scale? I can potentially see the plot about about Belief in God with Successful Societies Scale. But there is really no causal relation between the acceptance of human evolution and why some societies can be termed as successful within those indices.<br /><br />Salman Hameedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04327330113822656571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-21724192582583387022012-08-18T01:10:45.387-04:002012-08-18T01:10:45.387-04:00A lot of frustration (some of it justified!) shine...A lot of frustration (some of it justified!) shines through in this paper- Coyne wants to cut through what he perceives as a obfuscating fog surrounding the roots of evolution rejection. Perhaps it's not much of a surprise that he points a finger straight at Religion.<br /><br />Once someone asks the question, "what kind of religion are you talking about?", however, it isn't as though Coyne doesn't have a response. He has a particular distaste for literalism in any form. That makes his comment that "accomodationists"(which I dislike as a term because of its Cold War overtones) "endorses a particular <i> form </i> of religion--a liberal faith that sees scripture as almost entirely metaphorical" more puzzling. <br /><br />Coyne writes that he is concerned that there is little evidence that accomodationism works, and that scientific organizations should stick to science. But, if that last point is granted, what form of engagement with believers does Coyne advocate? Coyne would have no subject if so many people did not associate some scientific subjects (which he acknowledges extend past evolution and into, at least, cosmology). It is true that science can speak to subjects of origins and other areas of religious interests without engaging religions- indeed, this happens most of the time. But within a public sphere that <i> wants </i> to discuss science and religion together, we need both greater complexity and more considered engagement.Donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02733799054106197853noreply@blogger.com