What Is Jerry Coyne’s Complaint?

by tristero

Full disclosure: I’m proud to count Barbara Forrest, author of Creationism’s Trojan Horse, a devastating critique of so-called “intelligent design” creationism, a personal friend. I don’t recognize her when Jerry Coyne describes her:

Accommodationists like Forrest and the National Center for Science Education have been using the “let’s-make-nice-to-the-faithful” strategy for several decades. What is the result?

Accommodationist? Barbara Forrest? Has Dr. Coyne actually read her book? Has he read her articles, seen her speak? Dr. Forrest advocates no accommodation – none, zero, zip, nada, zilch – for those who would dilute science education. And she suffers no fools and provides no quarter to christianists.

I truly have no idea what Coyne is talking about. For example, he complains about this description of Forrest:

Forrest then gave three reasons that secularists should not alienate religious moderates:

1. Etiquette. Or as Forrest put it, “be nice.” Religion is a very private matter, and given that liberal religionists support church-state separation, we really have no business questioning their personal way of making meaning of the world. After all, they are not trying to force it on anybody else.

Who could possibly object to this? And on what grounds? But Dr. Coyne does, or rather, he thinks he does:

Let’s first dispose of one argument: Mooney and Forrest’s implicit requirement that atheists should “make nice” with their religious, evolution-accepting opponents and never, ever criticize them.

You catch that? Forrest said, “Be nice,” but Coyne understands that to imply, “Make nice.” Hell of a difference. Being nice is merely manners but making nice is aggressively fawning. And that’s for starters. You’d have to be completely unaware of the ways in which Southern hospitality works (Forrest is from Louisiana) to mistake “being nice” for accommodation! But Coyne apparently can’t tell the difference and goes after a straw man. He’s arguing with himself and he certainly makes a compelling case. But his argument has nothing whatsoever to do with what Forrest said or, more importantly, how she fights against creationism and for science education.

I’ll address Dr. Coyne’s question (“What is the result?”) in a moment. But I have to note that I simply don’t understand Dr. Coyne. Not his science, which sounds fascinating, but his cultural/political assertions. He certainly can’t be saying that science proves religion is bogus because, of course, science has proved no such thing. There are many reasons for that, not the least of which is that the term “religion” is, from the standpoint of a scientific investigation, far too general a term to mean much. Ditto God, another term that is left undefined, although Coyne seems to think it means “a white guy in the sky,” as if that is anything remotely resembling a description of God for most religions. So what is he talking about, what is he objecting to that is different from what Barbara Forrest objects to? I honestly have no idea. They both vigorously support science education, of course. The only difference seems to be that Forrest knows exactly what she opposes – creationism – and Coyne doesn’t – religion, whatever that is.

Sounds like intellectual incoherence to me. But Dr. Coyne is a very smart person, and so I can only assume I am not capable of following his thought. Hopefully, one of you in comments will enlighten me.

Now, to answer Coyne’s question. Again:

Accommodationists like Forrest and the National Center for Science Education have been using the “let’s-make-nice-to-the-faithful” strategy for several decades. What is the result? First, American acceptance of evolution has stayed exactly where it is for 25 years. The strategy is not changing minds. Second, the progress that has been made is not in changing minds, but winning court cases, as in Dover. However, winning those court cases does not require that we show that science and religion are compatible. Rather, it requires showing that creationism and ID are forms of disguised religion.

I have no idea which of the many strategies the NCSE uses has worked or not worked over the past decades, and neither does Coyne. No one’s examined the evidence in a scientific fashion. For that matter, no one has carefully quantified or measured the amount of influence NCSE has had on the debate.

In other words, Coyne’s assertion that they have had virtually no influence in changing minds is simply his opinion, to which he is entitled. I, however, beg to differ.

NCSE, including Forrest, played, by all accounts, a pivotal role in Kitzmiller v. Dover, a case which I believe (and I’ve studied both extensively), is far more important in the battle against the establishment of religion than Scopes. The impact of this decision has been profound, far beyond the merely legal which Coyne asserts. One small example: After Dover, the New York Times (and many other mainstream media) dramatically changed its news coverage of ID creationism, and no longer, as far as I know, publishes puff pieces about creationism and creationists.

Perhaps the best thing to say about Dr, Coyne’s assertion that this isn’t enough – let’s be nice, after all – is, “Yes, of course.” Obviously, more can be done to safeguard – and improve! – science teaching. No one fighting the good fight, least of all NCSE and Barbara Forrest, would disagree. So what, exactly, is Coyne’s disagreement?

To be clear, I certainly don’t want Coyne to shut up – which he claims, completely without foundation, Forrest does. Rather, I want Dr. Coyne to continue to speak out, but clearly. When it comes to what he calls “accomodationism,” he has been extraordinarily difficult to understand. Certainly, nothing I know about Forrest, both intellectually and personally, can by any reasonable criteria be described as intellectual or political “accommodationism.” She is intellectually uncompromising and politically tough (and also very nice). The label is absurd.

[Updated to correct a misattributed quote.]