Ever since the scopes trial, scientists have been playing nice. This new atheism is, well, new. I’m curious to see where it goes. Let’s wait until Dawkins’ et al. starts declaring fatwas against creationists before we call him a strident fundamentalist atheist.

However I think that was a minor point of the essay, and the main thrust was that strident anti-theism makes it more difficult to educate people about evolution. Many religious people are already so attuned to evidence that the world is against them that creating an absolute dichotomy between science and belief is maybe counterproductive. Fundamentalist Christians in this country especially seem to feel that they’re somehow oppressed. People who feel unjustly oppressed are likely to discount the arguments of their perceived oppressors.

The way to change peoples minds is generally not hitting them over their heads or insulting them, it’s persuading them. Persuasion is a lot easier when people aren’t feeling attacked. In that way I think some prominent atheists are strengthening the position of fundamentalists and making educators jobs more difficult by the strident and somewhat insulting tone of their discussion.

Of course they have every right to express their opinions. It may be a good thing that there are some strident atheists out there, there are certainly enough strident anti-evolutionists out there. I’m not a huge fan of Richard Dawkins style, even though “The Extended Phenotype” was instrumental in convincing me to study evolution after I read it in high school.

I just don’t think declaring other peoples beliefs a delusion is the best way to act if your goal is to teach evolution to uninformed creationists. If that is indeed the primary point of “The Great Divide” then I agree with it strongly even if I don’t agree with the spurious selectionist justification.

Also, I didn’t see a link to the article in your post, so with a little googling here it is:

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-09-24.html