From E.O. Wilson's appearance last year on PBS Bill Moyers talking about the common moral obligation among atheists and evangelicals to take collective action on the environment:
Let us-- in the service of a transcendent moral obligation and concern put aside our differences for the time being and not fuss with each other over evolution. In other words where it all came from. Let us agree looking at the evidence that is disappearing. And let us, dare I use the word, gather at the river.Come together on common ground where we can exercise the extraordinary power we have jointly. And I argue and few people disagreed with me that science and religion are the two most powerful social forces in the world. Having them at odds at each other all the way up to the highest levels of government and-- the popular media all the time is not productive.
Environment
Life Science
Comments
Without an evolutionary underpinning, then how we describe and understand diversity and how we go about saving it is damn near impossible.
Posted by: michaelf | March 28, 2008 2:49 PM
Let us-- in the service of a transcendent moral obligation and concern put aside our differences for the time being and not fuss with each other over evolution.
**********************************************
Ok so what does that exactly mean?
There are a few scenarios one can think of:
1) Neither side pushes the evolution/creationism issue until the climate issue is resolved.
2) Both sides keep pushing their respective opinions regarding evolution & creationism but agree to come together to work on climate change.
3) Creationists give up on pushing creationism and work with scientists on climate change.
4) Scientists give up on fighting creationists until the climate change issue is solved.
Number 3 I can get behind and as long as creationists push for creationism to be taught then I think scientists need to push back. Number 2 wouldn't be ideal but I would be fine with. Number 1 keeps scientific illiteracy too high in the US for my comfort. Number 4 is a non-starter. Creationists are the ones pushing religion into the arena of science. To say that is ok in order to gain some support for climate change is just setting for future failures (i.e. cost is too great for very little reward).
Posted by: ponderingfool | March 28, 2008 2:59 PM
Matt,
Would you be willing to apply this to the evolution issue by shutting up with your criticisms of Dawkins and PZ?
Posted by: Chris Hallquist | March 28, 2008 3:51 PM
If a particular religious belief is a barrier to the understanding of science, why would we not want to address that religious belief?
If a particular religious belief is allowing certain harmful laws or regulations to be passed, why would we not want to address that religious belief?
I really don't understand this urge to..be...so...quiet..
And I don't see the evidence that our quietness, over the past quarter century, achieved good results.
Posted by: Booker | March 28, 2008 4:36 PM
Where's the beef?
Posted by: Matti K. | March 28, 2008 6:56 PM
By quoting this without comment I can only guess at your motives, but I presume that you find this is acceptable. I join others who question the reason that you are on ScienceBlogs.
So, what service would it provide to allow pseudoscience to remain unchecked, this "unruffling of feathers" position. Evoluton is what teaches us that we are all a part of "creaton." It is what marks our indelible stamp. It is the science that shows us that we have responsibility to the "moral cause." It teaches us that we are not a special craetion and that in saving the biosphere we are saving ourselves. The creationists should be allowed to wallow in their ignorance until we can restore the climate? How will they ever learn the importance of taking action if they are allowed to think that they are protected by God?
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | March 29, 2008 2:26 AM
I join others who question the reason that you are on ScienceBlogs.
Says the stereotypically fanatical atheist liberal whose blogroll is strictly limited to atheist websites...
But hey!... at least politics and the culture war aren't the main factors of these anti-righteous science lovers... (but they can't they see my eyes rolling either).
Posted by: island | March 29, 2008 11:52 AM
"Let us ... not fuss with each other over evolution".
I do not quite understand, what this "fussing" means in this sentence. Please explain this to a stupid foreigner.
Particularily, how has the scientific community "fussed" so far? Has it tried to make evolution an compulsory part of sermons and Sunday schools? Or is an attempt to keep the biology curriculum scientific in public schools "fussing"?
Posted by: Matti K. | March 29, 2008 12:39 PM
not to pile on or anything, but nice hair.
Posted by: charlie | March 29, 2008 5:05 PM
Not that I want to accuse Matthew of quote mining, or anything, but if you follow his link (to his previous post) and then follow the link in THAT post to the transcript, and scroll down just a little bit below the part that Matthew quotes, you see that Wilson's views are not exactly as simple as portrayed here:
In other words, if we replace the notion of "creation in god's image" with a broadening public knowledge that we evolved and are thus kin to all life, that'd be a good start toward solving the problem.
But that bit wouldn't support Matthew's argument, would it?
Posted by: Chris Clarke | April 2, 2008 11:57 PM
Chris,
I'm not clear what the point is. How is that elaboration inconsistent with the goal of atheists and religious Americans working together to solve common problems instead of being in constant polarized fights? You can certainly be religious and accept that we are a biological species living in a biological world.
Posted by: Matthew C. Nisbet | April 3, 2008 12:12 AM
*headdesk*
Who causes those polarized fights, Matthew? And over what topic?
The issue is not that atheist scientists are crusading to abolish religion. It is that religious extremists are trying to push their own ideology into education, to the detriment of objective, verifiable fact.
And you provide the religious extremists cover by reframing it as a fight on a level playing field between opponents of equal goodwill.
You provide cover for people who would advance ignorance.
You are working to help spread ignorance, Matthew.
Posted by: Chris Clarke | April 6, 2008 4:36 PM