The report actually says, “87% of scientists say that humans and other living things have evolved over time and that evolution is the result of natural processes such as natural selection. Just 32% of the public accepts this as true.”

This represents a small improvement on the 2006 Pew Report which found 27% of the public acceptance of evolution by natural processes alone.

Surely the evidence is compelling: science and religion – as practiced by most Americans, at least – are far from compatible.

Nor do I believe that you are “Coyne’s spokesman”. My apologies for making you think that.

However, I have to differ strongly with your assessment regarding NCSE’s “accomodationism”. It doesn’t exist, period, even if you, Coyne, Myers et al. continue to believe so.

Speaking for myself I will say that all those who are able to reconcile their religipus faith with evolution can join together and speak from the religious point of view, or points of view, in defense of evolution if they wish. The NCSE, as an organisation speaking on behalf of science education, is the wrong place to do it, though. A more correct platform would be an organisation which speaks on behalf of religious education. But this would never work because there is no religious consensus on the truth of evolution. A whole lot of religious people think it’s the greatest evil the devil ever landed humankind with.

The NCSE’s policy inevitably invites dissent from thoses who believe that religious faith and science do not mix; particularly those who believe that science and religion are antithetical. It can appear to be sending a message that science needs the help of religion. It can also appear to be saying that science officially endorses religions which endorse science: whether or not it intends to do so.

Why should non-believing scientists buy into all this when it is obvious that religious objectors to evolution cannot be delivered unto science by the blandishments of false religions?

I believe that science can and must fight its own corner. Religion offers science nothing in return for a seat at its table.

I’ve spent much time – maybe too much time – looking over NCSE’s website, and I don’t see anything that remotely confirms Jerry Coyne’s absurd “accomodationism” charge, unless you contend that NCSE Faith Project Director Paul Hess is ample confirmation of such “accomodationism” (It is not, since he doesn’t write – nor has he written – anything explaining why science should accomodate certain – or all – religions.). And I’m not the only one who has been checking. I asked Ken Miller – after I had done my own private investigation – and he claims that he hasn’t seen anything at NCSE’s website which supports Coyne’s accusation (Now before you accuse me of being in collusion with Ken since he is both a friend and a fellow alumnus of our undergraduate alma mater, please bear in mind that I had asked Ken AFTER I checked and that I’m a Deist, not a devout Roman Catholic (which is Ken’s faith)).

Jerry Coyne has said that everyone who engages creationists should be “together” since we’re all on the pro-evolution side. If he means what he has said, then why does he attack me, Ken Miller and others who strongly disagree with his “accomodationist” charge?

To a varying degree these organisations are straying beyond the bounds of science and into the bounds (or the embrace) of religion and philosophy to defend evolution. I don’t think they should be doing so, nor does Jerry.

This list of organisations you have given: are they all commenting on the agreeableness of science and religion? I have no idea. If so I would find it quite extraordinary. I would assume that they would be making the point as strongly as possible that evolution qua theory is as well atttested a theory as any in science, and is also considered to be a fact in the same way that it is considered that atoms exist, that gravity exists, that the planets revolve around the sun, that germs cause diseases etc.

To engage in an attempt to tempt religious objectors to accept evolution by pointing to others from different religous faiths who say that they accept evolution is patently futile.

Scientists must not become missionary agents for science-religion compatible faiths.

Considering some of the famous people that I do know, I would say that meeting Dawkins and Ward that night was one of the most amazing meetings I ever had and one I still treasure a lot to this day (And I say this even though I’ve been troubled by some of his recent rather harsh, anti-religious biogtry.).

So jealous…