I haven’t read the report myself; perhaps you have a leg up on me and could answer my preliminary thoughts if I have missed something obvious.

Out of the respondents, only 84% could answer the question about their beliefs concerning evolution. If I’m interpreting this right, 49% of weekly churchgoers accept the literal truth of Genesis, that we were like Adam and Eve; 21% believe in the metaphorical truth, and that God exerted supreme guidance. That’s 70% out of all respondents; but out of those that responded to that set of questions, it’s 83%, the solid majority. If we were to presume that avid churchgoers (weekly) is a measure of diffidence (semi-plausible), and presumed that avid churchgoing is a reflection of possessing a more authoritarian personality the casual churchgoer (an incredible assumption made for the sake of argument; perhaps it is bolstered somewhat by supposing that doctrinal diffidence is a measure of the authoritarian personality), then we’d have to conclude that lives lived around weekly religious services trend towards diffidence, and therefore towards the authoritarian personality.

The question is then: of that second group, to what extent were the metaphorical (brute force compatibilist) interpretations themselves guided by church doctrine and behavior? That would require, at least, a breakdown of the frequency of churchgoing by sect. If it turns out that all religions show a significant minority who both attend frequently and who defy the literal doctrine, then that’s one thing in your favor, but if the metaphorical interpretation is being taught outright in their religious communities (Pope John Paul, for example) then it’s another thing entirely.

We might try going backwards, and pegging the authoritarian personality to particular religions, but that would be even more problematic.

As these things go, though, it will all depend on degrees of deviance from the local clerical authority. It is not possible to determine from that table whether or not the metaphorical interpretations are the norm within some community. (Again, we’re making big and unwarranted assumptions, i.e., that free-thinking and the authoritarian personality cannot coincide; but otherwise the data would just be impenetrable as far as my concerns go.)

Since I’ve had more time to go through the Pew report, I think regarding your question I would say the people who would be subject to your description would make no distinction, and so in the interest of clarity I would say the definition needs to include all.

Look at this chart: http://people-press.org/reports/images/528-60.gif

There, people who self-identified as religious were broken down into their views about natural selection. Among those identifying as religious, there’s significant disagreement over evolution as a natural, unguided process. While the dogma of their particular organization may say otherwise, it does not negate the opinions of those who make their religion compatible. And according to these poll numbers, those who do seem to make up a significant percentage.

Glad you recognize this, but if you read Coyne’s and Myers’s columns on “accomodationism” etc., starting of course with Coyne’s New Republic review of Miller and Giberson’s new books, you might come away with a completely different picture, which, I should note, that TomJoe, among others, has recognized. The way they have been advocating their positions, including condemnation of any kind of “accomodationism”, has led me to the conclusion that there may be much validity to eminent evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson’s contention that atheism is a “stealth religion”.

Anyway it’s getting late and I’ll be turning it shortly.

Here’s a few dirty little secrets which Coyne and Myers don’t want you to hear:

1) Religiously devout scientists can – and do – function like their atheistic and agnostic colleagues when conducting their scientific research (I know personally a few whom I’ve interacted with – and I am not including Ken Miller – and when it came to science, they were focused completely on their scientific research, without having any consideration for their religious views.

2) Ken Miller has said that those who embrace faiths hostile to science should discard these faiths ASAP, preferably immediately.

3) Ken Miller has also said that where science and religion may intersect, then science takes precedence above everything else (A sentiment strongly endorsed too by Vatican Observatory astronomer and planetary scientist Guy Consolmagno, during the World Science Festival session “Science Faith Religion” – which Coyne denounced vehemently at his blog, rejecting in a rather boorish fashion, a generous invitation offered by the WSF founders and directors, physicist Brian Greene and his wife, journalist Tracy Day – last month here in New York City, on the campus of New York University.)

4) If you believed Coyne and Myers then “theistic” scientists like Miller and Consolmagno would consider first and foremost, their devout religious devotion to Jesus Christ. Not true.

5) According to polling data from the late 1990s, approximately 56% of evolutionary biologists regard themselves as religious (I heard this during a talk given by vertebrate paleobiologist Donald Prothero here in New York City back in January).

I hope I wasn’t disrespectful of your opinions – I didn’t intend that.

So far I haven’t actually presented any of ‘my’ opinions, per se, I’ve just been attempting to parse Coyne’s, so no worries there. By my comment: “please not(e) that I did not make any attempt to attack the validity of *your* views” I did not mean to imply that my own views had been attacked–I was attempting to say that I was not presenting any argument against your own presented opinions, but merely a clarification of what you (mostly TomJoe, actually) appeared to be arguing against (i.e. Coyne’s opinon). I hope that makes sense.

On the idea of “always” putting forth religious scientists – is that really true or is it just perception? I think I’d like to see an historic breakdown, some hard data to back that assertion up. The Pew study shows that most people get their science news from TV, from shows such as Nova. To me, that suggests that most people see the scientist put forth as Neil deGrasse Tyson, who is an atheist.

On the face of it, I think it’s a good question, but again, I feel I have to clarify that Coyne is NOT saying “theistic scientists always get the good shows/interviews/whatever”. The ‘putting forth’ of religious scientists is specific to the efforts to increase public support for Evolution as a scientific fact and educational standard by the NCSE and the NAS, which invariably seem to focus on pointing out that there are plenty of scientists who are also religious, ergo science (including acceptance of evolution) and religion are compatible. Coyne presents the idea that this should be a non-issue. We shouldn’t have to preempt any compatibility issues, but rather the science should stand on its own merits as factual reality. Your point about Neil DeGrasse Tyson kind of makes this case, I think. He’s an atheist, AND he’s a scientist–does it follow then that science and religion are incompatible? I think not. Some may find his lack of faith disturbing , but as it doesn’t factor into his presentation of astrophysics or whatever other science he’s covering in the least, I’d wager that most viewers don’t know/care what he actually believes. I think this should be the default position, because at the end of the day I think discussions about the personal faith beliefs (or lack thereof) of scientists *as they pertain to the acceptance of science* is a losing proposition. Ken Miller and Francis Collins and the like are perfectly free to believe what they like, and to discuss their personal reconciliations of faith and science until the cows come home1. *No one is trying to silence them*. I just think it’s a mistake to hitch all the outreach wagons to their stars, if you see what I mean, and that is what seems to be happening.

OT to your OT:
I appreciate Tyson’s efforts in this regard as well. I am a research biologist and I do a lot of outreach activities with the local schools. The teachers and parent chaperones for these groups frequently express delight that the kids get to see a *woman* scientist in action, but so far the kids have found my gender completely unremarkable. How fantastic would it be if this up and coming generation were to find nothing remotely novel about women in science?

1 Under the terms of moo (see comment #11), I am required to include this phrase.

“I do not mean to be dismissive when I use terms like “ad hoc” and “deviant”. I use those terms in order to give nodes by which we can actively engage with an articulate vision of what a religion is, at least according to the view I have presented here. Diversity is relevant in some sense, but is it relevant for religion qua religion? Or is it instead relevant for religion qua philosophy?”

Interesting. I’m going to give my reply to this some thought over the weekend.

(OT for all except Ben: As for detective stories, you might be interested in clicking the link to my home page.)

First, weird about that comment.

Next, yes I’m TB/Tim , cleared my cache and cookies and logged in differently unintentionally. But now that it’s changed, I think I’ll leave it TB. I’d rather search engines point to my website rather than here, for commercial reasons Sorry for the confusion though.

“I think that there are many legitimate problems to address within the differences of his views vs. those of CM, SK et al., but these issues are continuously obscured and confounded by a propensity on both sides of the argument to misinterpret and misrepresent the other viewpoint. ”

I’ll concede that it’s possible I’m not representing his views correctly – in truth I’ve stopped reading him so my opinion is not of his current thoughts. I hope I wasn’t disrespectful of your opinions – I didn’t intend that.

In addition, I didn’t mean this as a challenge:
“And that brings up another question: On the idea of “always” putting forth religious scientists – is that really true or is it just perception? I think I’d like to see an historic breakdown, some hard data to back that assertion up.”
But as a genuine inquiry. The Pew study shows that most people get their science news from TV, from shows such as Nova. To me, that suggests that most people see the scientist put forth as Neil deGrasse Tyson, who is an atheist.
I’m honestly wondering if there is something to that assertion, or if there’s a strong perception because many people will remember the person who irritates them more than someone who doesn’t.

OT: My daughters really enjoy Nova, Nova Science Now and Tyson. And it doesn’t go unnoticed by me that many of the scientists Tyson profiles are women. That’s something I really appreciate.