Thoughts in a Haystack

Michael Ruse has a piece in the Guardian that is not very good. Russell Blackford neatly (and humorously) deconstructs it.

But Russell, himself a (non-American) lawyer, as well as a philosopher, defers to Jerrry Coyne on one point that at least needs expanding on. According to Russell, Ruse's "worst howler" was when he said this:

If, as the new atheists think, Darwinian evolutionary biology is incompatible with Christianity, then will they give me a good argument as to why the science should be taught in schools if it implies the falsity of religion? The first amendment to the constitution of the United States of America separates church and state. Why are their beliefs exempt?

Russell quotes Coyne with approval:

[L]ots of things that we teach students make them question not only their faith, but their fundamental values. This is GOOD. Questioning your principles is one of the main aims of education, as Socrates knew well. As biology teachers, our job is to teach evolution, for that is the true account of the history of life. If that account leads some people to question or leave their faith, that's just too bad. But it's not the same thing as telling students that there is no god.

Quite true. As I have pointed out before, any "spillover effect" the teaching of evolution may have on any (or all) religious belief is not unconstitutional. There is a clear secular purpose to teaching our best scientific understanding of biology, and if that causes students to question their religious belief, that's too bad as far as the Constitution goes.

But there is a subtle (perhaps obscure, due to Ruse's poor formulation) difference between what Ruse said and what Coyne and (by extension) Russell are saying. Ruse was focusing on the proposition that the "new atheists" are claiming that Darwinian evolutionary biology is incompatible with Christianity (and, presumably, other Abrahamic religions, among others).

It is quite one thing to say that religion has to take its chances with the teaching of science and quite another to teach that science is incompatible with religion. To teach the latter is most definitely to teach that there is no god -- at least as long as we want to teach that science is factual, as opposed to just another philosophy.

There is a conundrum as long as Coyne, et al. want to maintain that science and religion are incompatible: why should the institutions of science abandon the position that science and religion are conceptually compatible if evolution is not the equivalent of atheism; why should the First Amendment not bar the teaching of evolution if science and religion are conceptually incompatible?
.