Jerry Coyne has a new book out called “Why Evolution Is True.” He also wrote a piece in The New Republic called “Seeing and Believing” where he examines the tensions between science and religion particularly around teaching evolution. Mr. Coyne examines two books that try to reconcile the apparent incompatibility and thoroughly demolishes them. In particular, he destroys the argument that science and religion are compatible because there are Christian scientists. As he puts it:
True, there are religious scientists and Darwinian churchgoers. But this does not mean that faith and science are compatible, except in the trivial sense that both attitudes can be simultaneously embraced by a single human mind. (It is like saying that marriage and adultery are compatible because some married people are adulterers. )
Coyne does a good job pointing out the incompatibility of liberal theologians and various religious apologizers. He defends Dawkins attacking mainstream religious belief in “The God Delusion” because that is what people actually believe. As Coyne points out in the following video, 63% of Americans believe in angels, only 40% believe in evolution.
It is hard to debate religion with believers because they are keen to attack science where it is weakest (like first cause, the various physical constants of the universe, or uncertainty in quantum mechanics). That isn’t to say these are particularly convincing arguments for a deity, but they do represent biggest gaps in current scientific understanding and therefore finding a role for a god there seems most plausible. Such gaps rely on ignorance and usually become more implausible over time. For example, a virgin birth resulting in a production a male offspring seems more plausible when one knows nothing about chromosomes and the role of sperm in contributing the Y chromosomes, however, with modern genetic understanding such a scenario becomes less believable.
Likewise, the apologist is hard pressed to defend the weakest aspect of their position, which is the internal consistency of their scripture. They will twist language, deny plain meaning and arbitrarily pick and choose those parts which they find convenient to defend. It is this process of picking and choosing, and attacking the language that makes apologetics so detestable; at least the fundamentalist is consistent in principle.
Coyne also points out in the video that simply trying to teach evolution better won’t work. It is not the strength of the case for the evolution that is the problem, it is that people reject it because it conflicts with their religious beliefs (I find it is dishonest to say that it doesn’t). Therefore, in order to get people to accept evolution, religious influence has to be rolled back.
Evolution is a litmus test for a secular society. If people are rejecting evolution because it conflicts with their previously held superstition, then there is no reasoning with them and any hope for consensus is lost. In addition, there is no telling what other issues they will dogmatically and stubbornly cling to in the face of contradictory evidence. A person who is unwilling to change his/her beliefs, especially in the face of overwhelming physical evidence, is a person who does not truly believe in the freedom of belief. If one is looking for the seed of totalitarianism, there it is and woe for those of us who want to use reason to build a better world.