THANKS!

For the many folk who left various comments on this post. I was, frankly, overwhelmed to get this many comments in such a short time. (James Earl Jones voice) "Such is the POWER of Pharyngula!"

Anyway, I can't respond individually to all of them, but I'll try to hit the highlights.

First of all, to those whose messages were essentially ones of affirmation, thanks very much! Dr. C, Johnnie Canuck, Mike Haubrich, wfr, Craig Messerman, Haki, Laurie and especially my fellow Molly winner Brownian, your encouragement is much appreciated!

Second, to commenters like Johnnie Canuck, Anonymous, Sarniaskeptic who suggested that I might be welcome sometime in the future in the camp of atheists, well, I kind of doubt (heh) that will ever happen. I am a believer, and while faith and reason are definitely not the same thing, my convictions motivate me to value the gift of reason, the practice of science and the defense of science education. But I do appreciate the sentiment. My standing offer to all non-believers and skeptics is to accept them where they are at, to listen with an open mind and to offer real friendship that is not contingent upon sharing the same belief in Big Sky Daddy.

Third, to djarm67, AIGBusted, Tim and others who are out there in various media attempting to promote science education: good for you! I hope that you notice that I've invited criticism and suggestions on how to improve our communication with the general public, including (gulp) 'framing.' I encourage you to pursue this in an active way, developing networks for mutual advice and support.

Fourth, to the many religious and former religious who identified their own belief system, and/or shared their take on how they reconcile or otherwise handle conflicts relating to science and faith, I have this observation: talking about the meaning of Darwin's work is very much like talking about ourselves. Most of us have a tendency to see what we want to see in the sage of Down House, and so perusing the many comments in this vein was, for me, very much like walking through a house of mirrors.

Finally, to the brave souls (especially Nick!) who offered me detailed suggestions as to what part of my public act needs work, thanks very much. I will respond to those comments in detail in a future post.

Scott

NEWS FROM THE VALLEY

Here's a blog from a past (and hopefully, future) Valley resident that gives Central Valley Cafe Scientifique some most-appreciated media coverage in this article, for which the author, a journalist, interviewed yours truly. The least I can do is link to it!

On a more troubling note, our scribe reports that one of our Cafe Sci presenters had his car vandalized, with a profane note attached that makes it clear that they were targeted for humorously advertising their acceptance of evolution.

Well, what can we say about that? I would say, first of all, that the incident as reported would certainly be regarded as shameful conduct by most people of faith, Christians and non-Christians alike. The second thing I would say, though, is that this is in part a consequence of conflating different sorts of claims. Dr. Wendee Holtcamp, a biologist and professional science writer (and a Bohemian!) has a wonderful piece about this phenomena from a Christian point of view that I really think is a 'must-read' for anyone who has taken a passionate stand where either evolution or creation is concerned. You can read her article here on the ASA (American Scientific Affiliation) web site.

And since I mentioned it....a little pub seems in order.....

The ASA is an association of Christians who hold at least a bachelor's degree in science and who endorse the organization's statement of faith. The ASA publishes a peer-reviewed journal on science and faith issues, and while the organization is probably dominated by old-earth creationists who are sympathetic to some version of ID, it has among its leadership many enthusiastic supporters of evolution. The ASA does not attempt to dictate a particular view on evolution or other matters in which "there is honest disagreement between Christians." Instead, the ASA affirms that they "are committed to providing an open forum where controversies can be discussed without fear of unjust condemnation. Legitimate differences of opinion among Christians who have studied both the Bible and science are freely expressed within the Affiliation in a context of Christian love and concern for truth."

Which just about says it all for how I want (I don't always succeed) to engage my fellow Christians....which is why I'm a member of ASA.

A PASTOR SPEAKS

I tend not to be overtly political, and I don't let politics (or my faith) affect my choice of friends as a general rule. This also seems to be the rule with the pastors at my church, so it seems to me a good model to follow. Ironically, Senator Obama is now having to answer questions about what sort of role model (if any) his former pastor served. In response, one of the pastors at my church penned this letter to the editor, which I share as food for thought:

I’m not a Democrat (or a Republican) but a European-American Christian curious about the corporate news feeding frenzy over Barak Obama's former pastor’s preaching.

Media ignorance about Christianity may explain the apparent misconception that people in the pew agree with everything a preacher says.

But many don’t understand the prophetic nature of African-American sermons since slavery. Too many Americans confuse Christianity with support for U.S. economic and foreign policy and don’t notice the indictment of greed, injustice, and jingoism in the message of Jesus and the Prophets. (“…Blessed are the peacemakers…”).

Why has John McCain gotten a pass on wealthy right-wing preacher John Hagee's endorsement, except for passing mention of his anti-Catholic rants? Hagee's virulent distortion of Revelation as a prediction of violent apocalypse leads to unquestioning support of the secular Israeli government, disregard for Palestinian Christians, condemnation of Muslims, and the anti-Semitic conviction that Jews must ultimately convert.

Seems like a fair question to me.

A CHALLENGE

I just sent a note to another blogger who has some serious, thoughtful objections to Paul's teachings in the New Testament. (Hey, join the club!)

She goes on to write that she just doesn't know if she can continue to believe that the Bible is infallible, and this shakes her faith in Christianity itself. That's an understandable reaction, and I admire her candor. Some of my readers have wondered how I could maintain any faith in Christianity, given the obvious imperfections of the Bible. I'll provide y'all with the same thought experiment that I shared with her:

"....my faith does not depend on any teaching that the Bible is either inerrant nor infallible. Let us go further than that, though, for the sake of a rhetorical point. Let us pretend that the Bible is not merely fallible, but irredeemably wicked. If all the Bibles in the world were confiscated and burned, would that mean the end of Christianity?"

I invite reader responses.