I think that the recent vocal out pouring from the so called ‘New Atheists’ is a reaction to creationism attack on science.

“The common ground, instead, must be science in its broadest sense–a shared body of facts we can all agree about…”
But there’s the rub. Facts are independent of agreement. There was a time when everyone agreed that the earth was flat.
When holy books make claims about the natural world (facts), these claims are often exposed as counter factual. This is a real conflict and there is no way to avoid it without redefining terms.
Should science remain silent on any factual claim made in holy books?
For example:
Noah’s Arc and the Tower of Babel – facts or fables?
Where is the common ground? Certainly many Americans believe that Noah’s Arc and the Tower of Babel actually existed. Are they wrong or not? Science says that they are simply wrong. Should this fact be avoided in schools in hopes that common ground or agreement can be found in the general population?

“The New Atheists are the upstarts here and seem to want these organizations to change their policies and approach–but they haven’t yet succeeded.”
Ok, so they “seem” to want and yet they “haven’t yet succeeded”? It “seems” to me that you have conflicting ideas here. You “haven’t yet succeeded” in making a salient point.
The definition of an atheist is one who does not believe in divinity of any sort. I don’t think your problem is one that has to do with atheists, new or otherwise. It’s with people of Science who respect facts and who refuse to back down from those facts and let creationists get away with pushing non-fact based things onto the American people who you say want no part of the conflict. It’s not an offense from the Scentists. It’s a defense of this country’s Constitutional rights of and from religion.

Thank you for the outstanding post. I believe that the “New Atheists” are not only opposed to religious belief, but to all philosophical and even scientific views that contain any element of spirituality or an acceptance of super rational possibilities. This is seen clearly in Daniel Dennet’s treatment of the emergent and transcendental nature of human consciousness, which he finds to be largely an illusion.
As a scientist, I find the hubris of many New Atheists disturbing, and outside of the true spirit (no pun intended) of scientific endeavors. The assumptions they make about the nature of truth reflect an arrogance that is reflective and reminiscent of their bitter opponents in the ultra religious camp. This is the time for the “extreme moderate” voices in the center to be heard. Clearly, the truth lies between the two raucous and irrational extremes. I believe that science and religion are not only not at war, but are mutually confirming.

Thank you, indeed, for this thoughtful post. I heartily agree with the call for moderate voices to become louder, though I worry that moderation will always seem a little too boring or complex to engage our nanosecond-long attention spans. That said, your book and the work of BioLogos et al. are praiseworthy steps in this direction.
One point I don’t fully agree with is your assertion that science is a shared body of facts we can all agree about. Facts are understood in light of one’s metaphysical framework; they are necessarily statements based on interpretation. All of us engaged in this debate would do well with more study of philosophy and history, not less (though I don’t think you were recommending such). Perhaps formal study in these areas as part of scientific training would go a long ways toward subduing the hubris Simon appropriately mentions – not to mention helping to bridge the Two Culture divide.
You are right – there is too much important scientific work to be done for people to spend their time making nasty ad hominem attacks in the blogosphere. But maybe it will in the end be a good thing: when the early church repeatedly encountered persecution and heresy, it had to do the difficult work of figuring out what it actually believed and why. Maybe this debate will do the same, forcing us to define what sorts of truth science and religion can deliver.

The authors miss the point badly. It is pointless to seek common ground, for there is none. Science and faith operate in separate, non-intersecting realms. There would be no conflict whatsoever if the people in each stuck to that realm: science, the realm of collecting, integrating, and analyzing data, and forming models of how things work; faith, the realm of spiritual speculations about God. Where is the common ground? Where is the conflict? There is none. IF there were common ground, THEN there would be the likelihood of conflict–a fight over ownership of the common ground.
Conflict exists, and there is a clear instigator. Whereas scientists correctly refrain from offering views AS SCIENTISTS about the reality of God, preachers and evangelicals never cease to offer their views AS CHRISTIANS about the reality of science. Most scientists are not atheists, and if they express their belief in God, they are not speaking AS scientists–that is, they do not claim to have scientific evidence that God does (or does not) exist. It is the creationists who have picked the fight, by invading the realm of science instead of staying in the realm of faith. The reason for their hostility is obvious; they have placed their faith not in God but in a tangible object, the Bible. And while science, including evolution, is no threat to faith in God, it IS a threat to the ludicrous notion that the Bible is a science textbook, literally true and infinitely accurate in every detail.
There is no common ground. This is not about different ways of looking at the same thing and learning to honor other perspectives. To “honor” pseudoscientific nonsense like creationism (especially the “young-Earth” version) is to promote misinformation. Lies should not be honored; they should be exposed and rejected. And here is the great irony — this misinformation is being promoted by people who worship a book that says that the TRUTH shall set you free.
You want peace? Tell the invaders to go home. Creationists have invaded the realm of science and are trying to destroy it by spreading poisonous lies. They have declared war on rationality itself; don’t blame rationalists for defending themselves.

Kathryn is right about the value of philosophical and historical studies for scientists. This is especially true for those who seek to understand the development of evolution theory, and the errors of some of the clergy who have long considered it to be anti-religious. I think the record actually shows that natural selection is strong evidence for the existence and creative power of God, but that’s another story. Scientists should also be encouraged to think about and discuss the philosophical ramifications of their ideas and discoveries.
Heretic, I think you are correct in your Gouldian approach to separate domains for science and religion if you mean the young earth creationists on one side, and the new atheists on the other. There is no common ground between those two groups. But what about everyone else? What about intelligent, well educated Christians, including active scientists and clergy, who prefer not to think of reality in dualistic terms? Can such people come to a single unified, non contradicting solution about the nature of the universe, life and humanity? I think the existence of this web site, and the testimony of a growing number of people who reject authoritarianism from either direction, is clearly yes.

Simon,
I am not an atheist, and I am not talking about the incompatible views of hardline atheists and fundamentalists. Rational scientists who may or may not have religious beliefs should see no conflict between acceptance of scientific facts and faith in God because there is none–their training and work as scientists is in a realm divorced from speculations about the existence and nature of God. Likewise, rational Christians who may or may not have scientific understanding should see no conflict between faith in God and acceptance of scientific facts, for the same reason.
In other words, in talking about separate realms, I am NOT making a comment about the impossibility of communication between intractably hostile foes; I am saying that rational Christians and rational scientists should have no conflict at all, because faith in God is not threatened by scientific fact and scientific progress is not threatened by faith in God. So there is no conflict for the great numbers of rational people who may be scientists, Christians, or both.
Yet conflict obviously DOES exist, and it is caused by one group–religious fundamentalists whose faith is NOT in God but in their fanatical insistence that the Bible is the literally true and inerrant word of God. Scientific fact DOES conflict with that view, for a literalist interpretation of the Bible leads to false conclusions about the history of Earth and Earthly life. It would be grotesque to suggest that scientists should seek some kind of compromise between evidence-based fact and scripture-based fallacy; and it would be futile to suggest that fundamentalists should seek a compromise position, because fanaticism cannot tolerate any deviation from its doctrines.
So for most people, there is no conflict that would require compromise or seeking of common ground; and for the one group that has caused conflict, no compromise is possible.

Heretic
I agree.

In reflecting upon Heretic’s comments, I do believe a careful distinction must be made between a true “literal” reading of scripture in light of its grammatico-historical background and that which should be more properly called a “literalistic” reading of the Bible. An accurate use of scripture recognizes the setting in which it was written, the purpose for which it was written, and the literary genre used in communicating truth. Too many people read the Bible like a contract or a legal brief, parsing details that are inconsequential to the original purpose of both the human and Divine authors.

I’m much too late to the party, but wanted to thank the authors for this post.
In my opinion, the big divide in the public arena is not between the religious and the non-religious or the Christians and the Muslims or the Muslims and the Jews, or the X’s and the Y’s (where X and Y are any two ideologies)–the big divide is between the tolerant and the intolerant.
When a believer in some ideology or religion tries to force his or her ideas down everyone’s throat, then their belief is fair game for attack. But there’s no reason to attack people who don’t try to do this.
In the case of theism, it’s ludicrous to lump all believers in God into the same camp, or claim that the “moderate” believers are giving moral support to the fanatics because they share a belief in God. That’s like saying that one can’t be left of center in politics or economics because any criticism of free market economics lends support to Stalinism. Or on the other hand that one can’t be a supporter of free market policies because Pinochet tortured and murdered people in defense of those policies.
Lumping every religious believer into the same camp as either an enemy of science or an indirect ally of enemies of science is wrong and intolerant. The people who do this have a strong psychological resemblance to the fundamentalists. (And notice that I’m not saying that atheism is just another form of religion. That depends on the atheist. I’m saying that militant atheists are very much like the fundamentalists.)

I dunno but this article seems to miss the point. I just ordered the book to see if does the same.
I too, am tired of the common ‘science vs religion’ taglines with little real meat, but I think the authors miss a few important points. The “New Atheist” arguments are not simply attacks on religion, but their views on the problems that arise when religious beliefs that materially contradict what we know (the scientific ‘know’, the .9 probability,etc.) are simply given a pass. Interestingly, the key impediments (aside from just the ‘work’ that remains to be done) to progress in the areas listed in the article are largely ‘religious’ or ‘belief based’. Obviously we have evolution’s offense to the sensibility of the fundamentalist and the need to find the curiously invisible ‘hand of God’ somewhere in it for a ‘moderate’ like Collins. Worry about climate change is not necessary due to our ‘dominion’ over the earth. Can’t do stem cell research because 16 cells with human DNA but no nervous system (that may go bad or be destryoed anyway) are possessed of the same ‘souls’ that fully grown humans who may very well benefit from from research on those cells. Vaccines are bad because Jenny McCarthy said so, on Oprah (who may be a god herself ) notwithstanding the mountains of scientific evidence to the contrary.
The “Science, alone, isn’t capable of saying whether God exists..” is troubling coming from scientists. Science, applied reason and logic, etc. never make statements about what is ‘not’. “There are no fairies, cold fusion, hobbits, effects of acupuncture other than placebo, etc”. What science can and does say is that, at this point, there’s no verifiable evidence, and therefore a vanishingly small probability of these things being real. Normally the practical response to ‘things’ in this category is “Ok possible, but highly improbable, therefore will live my day to day life as ‘not’”
I wonder if the authors actually read Dawkins or just trolled for quotes. Atheism, as presented by say Dawkins, is most assuredly not a philosophy. He devotes several pages to what I just described and avoiding the fallacy of the excluded middle by explaining a “continuum of belief” 1 – theist without doubt/question, 7 – atheist without doubt/question and marks himself as a 6 simply because notwithstanding the lack of evidence, reason requires the ability to accept new information. Technically strong non-theistic agnosticism, atheism in practice. A logical position on an assertion, but no description of any philosophy per se (i don’t see such a description in this article either).
The assertion that we stand on the common ground of scientific facts, “however we may differ about the spiritual”. Not sure what that supposed to mean as there are several important unanswered questions. How do address areas where the ‘spiritual’ clearly attempts to contradict reason? How do we resolve the conflicts,find common ground amongst the spiritual? Why aren’t the fundamentalists “right” ? Why are the Christians/Muslims/Jews/etc/etc “right”? How do we tell ?
The article uses the “New Atheist” moniker, but I see the “militant” here in the comments. Label are always interesting. Of course, I always like to point out that in contemporary usage “militant” religious people are those that tend to blow things up (abortion clinics, buildings in new york), while “militant” atheists tend to do things like write books and engage in public debates. While the “new atheists” don’t necessarily pull any punches, I fail to see where they are pushing their arguments down people’s throats. The criticisms seem to be more around the fact that they are ‘not nice’ as opposed to the substance of their arguments.
I am also troubled by the author’s lack of reservation about Mr. Collins appointment to NIH. I have the greatest respect for his scientific achievements, but unlike a scientist who is simply also a beliver, Dr. Collins actively engages in an embarrassingly unscientific attempt to remove the dissonance from his cognition by making up the rules as he goes along (e.g. virgin births make sense “in some cases”)
The thrust of this article that there’s no conflict between science and religion is tenuous at best. Science, applied reason (from physics to ethics) has been humanity’s best tool to date for gaining an objective understanding of our very existence. The 4-500 years of ‘modern’ science, have allowed us to progress more in that span of time than say the past 5000 years in which religion principally tried to answer many of the same questions. As long as religion makes assertions about “the world” science and reason will continue to step its toes and this is not a bad thing. So is there a ‘battle’? Perhaps not, but there’s certainly a debate. And essentially positing that a group of the debaters should ‘shut up’ is not how we resolve it.

I’m a Christian, I love science, and I see no incompatibility between the two. When in college, (studying Math, Physics, E.E., and History -in which I earned degrees over 5 years) I believed in evolution as a scientific fact, I was taught so in High School and popular science mags and programs. In CUNY I decided to study the scientific evidences for evolution theory found those evidences to be far from the criteria of hard science, the theory was seriously flawed based on science. Now, 32 years later, keeping in touch with various fields of science that I’m interested in, the scientific case for evolution has only dwindled to near nothing.
Science does has the ability to say no to an hypothesis or theory, and science clearly says no to Evolution.
For starters, Darwin’s Theory was based upon two erroneous Theories.
The 1st being Reverend’s Thomas Malthus Theory that human population growth greatly exceeds the supply of food production, which leads to a great struggle to survive where only (As Darwin/Wallace saw it and applied same to all creatures) the fittest, most evolved will survive. As we now know, Malthus was wrong.
The 2nd Theory That Darwin based his mechanism for his theory of evolution was an idea going to back to Hippocrates (460-377 BC), it was called pangenesis.
Pangenesis is a theory in which gemmules containing hereditary information from every part of the body coalesce in the gonads and are incorporated into the reproductive cells.
The Principle of Segregation
The Principle of Independent Assortment
Mendel came to four important conclusions from these experimental results:
1. The inheritance of each trait is determined by “units” or “factors” (now called genes) that are passed on to descendents unchanged.
2. An individual inherits one such unit from each parent for each trait.
3. A trait may not show up in an individual but can still be passed on to the next generation.
4. The genes for each trait segregate themselves during gamete production.
The General idea promoted by Charles Darwin and friends was that the Species were not genetically fixed, that species were constantly accumulating new novel genetic characteristics and passing them on to their offspring via Pangenesis. Thus they viewed the species as having plasticity.As anyone could see, offspring were physically similar to their parents, but also had physical traits that were different somewhat from their parents. That over a very long period of time, these small variations from generation to generation would accumulate into major morphogical changes, so much so that the distant offpring will be enormously physically different. An ancient amphibian would have a human as their very distant future offspring. Thus the species were variable and fluid over time, and not fixed.
Mendel’s ideas on heredity and evolution were diametrically opposed to those of Darwin and his followers. As Mendellian Genetics became known to be the true mechanism for genetic variation, it quickly became clear that Darwin was wrong about pangenesis and plasticity of the species. Mendellian Genetics re-established the fixity of the species.
This was clearly seen as a devastating blow to Darwin’s Theeory of Evolution by the co-founder of Darwin’s Theory. Alfred Russel Wallace:
From Monroe W. Strickberger, Genetics, 2nd edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1976), p. 812.
Alfred Russel Wallace, who independently proposed the theory of organic evolution slightly before Charles Darwin, was opposed to Mendel’s laws of genetics. Wallace knew Mendel’s experiments showed that the general characteristics of an organism remained within distinct boundaries. In a letter to Dr. Archdall Reid on 28 December 1909, Wallace wrote:
“But on the general relation of Mendelism to Evolution I have come to a very definite conclusion. This is, that it has no relation whatever to the evolution of species or higher groups, but is really antagonistic to such evolution! The essential basis of evolution, involving as it does the most minute and all-pervading adaptation to the whole environment, is extreme and ever-present plasticity, as a condition of survival and adaptation. But the essence of Mendelian characters is their rigidity. They are transmitted without variation, and therefore, except by the rarest of accidents, can never become adapted to ever varying conditions.” James Marchant, Letters and Reminiscences (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1916), p. 340.
Well, Wallace was almost right, he simply did not know just how diverse in characteristics the genes actually are, enabling a single species to radiate a myriad of descendant ‘species’ that can fill an array of ecological niches, such as the Cichlids in Lake Victoria.
Next, the science against abiogenesis has gotten so redicoulously overwhelming that it is safe to admit with integrity that Louis Pastuers’ Law of Biogenesis that “all life is from life” is a credible scientific statement. Thus the alleged first progenote has no scientific basis for arising other than being created from a living being. No one would look at the Presidents faces carved on Mount Rushmore and assume that they are the products of natural cause, how much more so ought we realize this is also true for the far more sophisticated 1st life on earth.
Futhermore, even assuming a single cell 1st progenote to exist, evolution of that 1st progenote to produce all life on earth as we know it, is also impossible based upon real science. Around 1990, Sauer, Reid et. al. at MIT tested the amino acid ambiguity of two short proteins, the lambda suppressor and I think the other may have been cytochrome C. turns out that only 1 in every 10^65 combinations of amino acid combinations were able to still maintain at least of 5% of their function. Nearly all these were incapable of functioning at all. It was noted by the team that they expected that two susbtitutions of amino acids would further drastically increase the improbability of getting a fuctional protein. The implications clearly indicate that amino acid substitutions will not lead to the new classes of proteins required for materialistic evolution. I also have read that there are several feedback systems that assist in faithfully reproducing existing amino acids sequences faithfully, though an occasional amino acid may be substituted loci without loss of function (i.e. ambiguity). Now, I am weak on biology, I merely repeating what I read in the Sauer et. el. MIT experiment. This team also noted that their results confirmed Hubert Yockeys’ Theoretical calculations a decade earlier.
My stronger suit is Physics, and to Physicists that have looked at evolution realize that the problem with evolution theory is that it runs contrary to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It was realized as early as the 1930′s, by a physicist whose name I can’t recall, that the reason why the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is true is because large collections of molecules will continually flow from states (arrangements) of low probability to states of ever increasing probability. From Sauers experiment above and Yockeys Theoretical calculations, that evolution requires amino acid rearrangements of extraodinarily low probability states. It was published in Time Magazine some years back that Physicists have expressed their doubts about materialistic evolution stating basically that a knew Physical Law must be found, some kind of ordering principle that would allow materialistic evolution to occur.
Finally, in the 1970′s, the paleontologists, led by Stephen Gould, Niles Eldredge, Steven Stanley, Colin Patterson, rebelled against Darwinism and the Modern Synthesis, pointing out that the truth of the actual fossil record had been suppressed for over a hundred years, that the actual fossil record is that of the sudden apearance of each distinct body types followed by stasis (no evolution) for their duration in the fossil record. Darwinian Evolution has never been observed in the fossil record. We see species radiations from specific ancestors, but these radiations are in compliance with Mendellian Genetics, no new genetic information is necessary.
In an effort to save the Theory of Evolution, these Paleontologists embraced punctuated Equilibrium which claims that evolution occurs rapidly in small populations in very short geological periods, thereby which they leave no record of evolution in the fossil record.
However, the evolutionary biologists, led by scientists similar to Richard Dawkins and Maynard Smith, rejected PE and fought for maintaining Darwinian evolution. They pointed out that PE is based on an the absence of scientific evidence for materialistic evolution. When Dawkins wrote his book, The Blind Watchmaker, he was not attacking Christians nor Creationists, He was attacking Gould and Eldredges Punctuated Equilibrium. This fued lasted until Gould’s death. Stephen Gould fumed a few years ago when an Editor of a major Science Periodical Publicatiion inserted into Gould’s paper, which they published, that the Theory of PE was complementary to Darwinian Evolution.
In my long search for evidence of evolution on the major scale as predicted by Darwin et. al., I have found none. All I see are stories invented by clever minds that insist on Evolution the Fact. I invite anyone here to lead me to such evidence if they know of any.
My own view is that the only explanation for the variety of life we observe on Earth requires an intelligent Being who can place the necessary boundary condition on the laws of physics and chance to bring about the necessary molecular arrangements needed for life as we know it. Comments welcomed.

I’d like to make a call for Mooney and Kirshenbaum to stop lying and misrepresenting the views of “New Atheists”. It’s this type of unethical behavior that’s the real problem in scientific debate. It’s a problem when Creationists do it, and it’s a problem when Mooney and Kirshenbaum do it.

The 1st being Reverend’s Thomas Malthus Theory that human population growth greatly exceeds the supply of food production, which leads to a great struggle to survive where only (As Darwin/Wallace saw it and applied same to all creatures) the fittest, most evolved will survive.
You have a simplistic, inaccurate understanding of evolution.
The 2nd Theory That Darwin based his mechanism for his theory of evolution was an idea going to back to Hippocrates (460-377 BC), it was called pangenesis.
Darwin didn’t know the mechanism by which traits were passed on. Genetics was the answer, and it had the potential to destroy the Theory of Evolution. Instead it has provided resounding confirmation.
Mendel’s ideas on heredity and evolution were diametrically opposed to those of Darwin and his followers.
No it’s not. It’s a major piece to the puzzle of how evolution works.
Next, the science against abiogenesis has gotten so redicoulously overwhelming that it is safe to admit with integrity that Louis Pastuers’ Law of Biogenesis that “all life is from life” is a credible scientific statement.
Evolution doesn’t need to know exactly how abiogenesis occurred in order to survive as a theory.
My stronger suit is Physics, and to Physicists that have looked at evolution realize that the problem with evolution theory is that it runs contrary to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Physics isn’t my strong suit, but I know that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies only to a closed system, which the areas where life lives are not. There is a constant input of energy into the system from both the sun and the earths core.
In an effort to save the Theory of Evolution, these Paleontologists embraced punctuated Equilibrium which claims that evolution occurs rapidly in small populations in very short geological periods, thereby which they leave no record of evolution in the fossil record.
Punctuated equilibrium doesn’t state that we won’t see any record of transitional species in the fossil record, and there are many examples of transitional fossils that prove this. Punctuated equilibrium says there are long periods of relative stability followed by rapid change. We may be less likely to find fossils in the rapid change phase, but we still do.
However, the evolutionary biologists, led by scientists similar to Richard Dawkins and Maynard Smith, rejected PE…
I don’t know if this is true, but who cares. Scientists disagree sometimes. Big deal.
…and fought for maintaining Darwinian evolution
Nobody fights for maintaining Darwinian Evolution. Our understanding of evolution has changed over the past 150 years. We’ve long since moved past what Darwin may or may not have believed.

In response to Arthur, may I pose just two problem with what you say? (if you’re interested in testing your thesis in depth, may I suggest you look at Jerry Coyne’s recent book, Why Evolution Is True’)
You talk of an intelligent being who ‘can place the necessary boundary condition on the laws of physics’. I’m sure you see the problem here: if there are laws of physics at all, which I assume you accept, then either god has to obey them (in which case he’s not a very powerful god) or he doesn’t (in which case why bother with tweaking mere boundaries?).
Finally, if everything you say is correct and the variety of life can only be explained by the existence of an intelligent being, how can you possibly decide which ‘intelligent being’ it is? Candidates include Zeus, Thor, and others, including the possibility of beings still unknown. What you say still leaves us looking at evidence for any specific god. In the case of Christianity, the increasing evidence that Jesus was a fictional invention of the early First Century would make that option one of the least likely.

M&K- Your simplistic definition of science as a “collection of facts” is laughable. Science is a method for evaluating claims of fact, of testing hypotheses, or sorting fact from fiction. Your definition renders the concept literally meaningless. But I guess you have to define it that way to defend the position you have backed yourself into. Perhaps you should consider engaging some serious self evaluation.
You also said:
“The common ground, instead, must be science in its broadest sense–a shared body of facts we can all agree about, however we may differ about the spiritual. Yet this common ground itself is at risk if we let science and faith be in conflict. ”
This is a shocking revelation. You are actually saying that science is in danger if people attack religion. Let me repeat that one more time for effect: You are saying that science is in danger if people attack religion.
WHAT?!
I’d label this a non-sequitur, but that hardly begins to describe the magnitude of your claim here. Do you have any evidence to support such an accusation? Are you just engaging in some form of extreme rhetorical hyperbole?
I hope you are capable of some serious self evaluation and introspection, because the two of you need to engage in that activity very soon if you hope to regain even a shred of your dignity. It is unlikely that your credibility can be salvaged at this point.