Of course, polls show that the USA lags way behind the rest of the developed world in matters like “belief in evolution.” That’s a damn shame. Part of it is the apathy of the broadly moderately religious, but I find the greater fault to be (1) the intrusion of fundies on the school boards (see Kansas, Texas, and Louisiana), and (2) the lack of funding of the school system.

It might seem odd at first glance that a simple lack of funding would suppress something fundamental like that. Afterall, maybe you can’t do the great labs you could otherwise, but facts are still facts, right? Well, with lack of funding you also get things like gym teachers teaching science class. What happens then? Even a gym teacher with a passing interest in biology who actually believes evolution to be the fact it is will simply be unprepared to properly teach it to the youth and provide the answers to the myriad of “what ifs” running through their heads as they compare it to what they’ve been indoctrinated with for their whole lives.

If someone refuses to accept evolution (and thinks everyone else is going to hell), I’d say s/he is a fundie by definition.

I get what you’re saying, and perhaps I overgeneralized my opinion of religious moderates, so a restatement of my point is in order.

Helena’s criticism was that people like PZ are too confrontational to ever convince moderate believers to reexamine their positions on various issues, let alone their core beliefs. Their strident approach, she claimed, turned more people off than they reached. As we all know here, reason NEVER works on a fundie, so, usually out of frustration, we unload on them without any realistic expectation of ever getting through to them, so I can easily sympathize with PZ’s approach.

But what about those so-called moderates? Well, I’ve never read or heard a rant by Myers, Hitchens or Dawkins that wasn’t firmly and fundamentally rooted in a logical basis – that is, for all of their occasional ferocity, their underlying reasoning is sound, and is furthermore not hard to grasp, at least if you aren’t completely poisoned by religious fundamentalism.

So why is it that most (not all, I admit) moderate believers still seem to have a problem with evolution? Myers and Dawkins are experts on this subject, so a reasonable person, unschooled in the field, ought to at least listen to what they have to say and grasp the underlying logic of their arguments. Of course, we humans don’t always do the rational thing, which is where religion rears its ugly head. More often than not, the average person is a lazy thinker when it comes to big issues. Evolution is a simple concept, but really learning about it takes a lot of time and effort. For a moderate believer, the choice is usually simple: trust these obnoxious scientists who are trying to tell me God plays no role in the history of life, or listen to my pastor who assures me I’m made in the very image of God, I’m special, I’ll go to Heaven, etc, etc… Even if you think Fred Phelps is a total dickhole, if you believe in a god that cares for you and intervenes from time to time on your behalf (not an exclusively fundamentalist position, I’d argue) you’re probably inclined to doubt evolution, no matter how sound the arguments in its favor might be.

I know that many religious people go out of their way to accommodate both ideas, claiming that science and religion can happily coexist. I don’t agree in principle with this view, but they’re not the people we get exasperated with. I know more people than I can count who I would classify as moderate believers that, for all of their occasional open-mindedness on other matters, refuse to allow the endeavor of science to enlighten them about evolution. They’re not unable to comprehend it, just unwilling. In this regard, I don’t think they’re much different from a fundie.

So, back to your point. No, not all moderates are beyond the reach of reason. I concede that. But most are, and no matter how the message is conveyed, it will usually fall on deaf ears.

Please, when have such people ever demonstrated a willingness to side with reason over their more extreme fundie brethren?

Brian – I agree with your ultimate point in that post, and it’s a good point. But this statement is patently not true. The reason religious moderates are, indeed, moderate, is that they do sometimes come down on the side of reason. Just not frequently enough…

I think it’s a conspiracy.

WTF? I suppose kind and polite criticism of “moderate” religious beliefs will encourage such people to abandon their faith? Please, when have such people ever demonstrated a willingness to side with reason over their more extreme fundie brethren?

Myers so-called desecration was, let’s not forget, a response to a Florida institute of higher learning persecuting a student for committing the same “offense”. No one seems to pay any attention to the draconian measures taken on behalf of the Catholic church to punish a student for the trivial charge of cracker molestation. And if religious moderates are horrified by an act that doesn’t respect their weird cannibalism rite, how in the name of Zeus do you expect them to listen to a reasonable criticism of faith?

As for Dawkins, well, you have a curious definition of embarrassment. I’d like to know, specifically, what he has said that leads you to think he doesn’t understand religion in general. Based on his books, it seems clear to me that he fully understands the religion phenomenon and is perfectly able to field unscreened questions about his opinions from anyone in any forum. Far from embarrassing himself, with every inane questioner he demolishes he just proves his point even more.

In this case, it is known as the “bad writer, worse writer” technique.

Oh, how I wish I’d come up with that one.

Just checking.