It has begun--especially with this post
from PZ. He is ticked at us for our Washington Post piece
. Oddly, PZ goes through much of the article but not the specific response to him:
There will always be a small audience of science enthusiasts who have a deep interest in the "mechanisms and evidence" of evolution, just as there will always be an audience for criticism of religion. But these messages are unlikely to reach a wider public, and even if they do they will probably be ignored or, in the case of atheistic attacks on religion, backfire.
Nisbet has what I think is a really stellar inline reply
to PZ's post. It's nice having a co-author to step up to the plate with these kinds of things (especially when one is in Australia). Bora has also been doing great work to add perspective on this very needed debate, and to explain why for defending science in the short term, framing is so important. Read everything
he has to say. Frankly, I think we're having a healthy--if sometimes quite passionate--discussion over all of this. To be clear: Nobody is saying anybody else ought to shut up or stop talking. (I could read this post
in that way, but I will not; and PZ should not read our articles in that way either.) In short, this is, in my view, a very needed strategy discussion for science-defenders to be having.
