Gregg Easterbrook is a scientific lightweight with a long, long history of goofy ideas; an apologist for religion and Intelligent Design creationism, and a shill for the Discovery Institute. He apparently has written well-regarded columns on football, but when it comes to science, his credibility is on the negative side of the number line. One of the characteristics of the incompetent, though, is that they do not recognize their own failings, so once again Easterbrook sallies forth, this time against Richard Dawkins. It's the nut against the nutcracker; the outcome is foreordained.

My personal position on Dawkins is somewhat complicated. I think he is definitely one of the best writers on our side of the argument; I think he is largely in the right on much of the science; I also think he is regrettably neglectful of development's role in evolution, which biases his thinking in ways that don't align with my biases; and I think he is dead-on target in his criticisms of religion's effect on society. I'm a bit different than many, who seem to think his description of science is exactly right and wish he'd shut up about religion: I think his science lacks some significant nuances, and want him to continue to speak out with vigor and clarity on the affliction of fundamentalism.

Easterbrook, of course, is outraged at the arrogance of the damned atheist.

Don't take this personally, but if you are an American adult there is a one in two chance that Richard Dawkins, a renowned professor of science at Oxford, thinks you are "ignorant, stupid or insane," unless you are "wicked." These are the adjectives Dawkins chooses to describe the roughly 100 million Americans adults who, if public opinion polls are right, believe Homo sapiens was created directly by God, rather than gradually by evolution. Ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. Not much to choose from there!

Mr Easterbrook is a bit behind the times. Dawkins wrote that in a book review in 1989—in the New York Times, April 9, 1989—and it has been hashed over for years. The important point, of course, is that contrary to Easterbrook's claim that there isn't much to choose from, that list actually covers the whole wide range of possibilities. Dawkins himself goes on to explain that the stupid, insane or wicked are the minority possibilities, but let's be honest and face the facts: if you are a creationist, you are almost certainly deeply ignorant of biology. Easterbrook seems to have actually gotten the quote from Dawkins' defense of the statement, but doesn't seem to have comprehended any of the surrounding words.

The gist of Easterbrook's complaint is that Dawkins is "arrogant", which seems to mean that he forcefully and plainly states the facts and evidence and logic of his case, and that those facts don't leave much wiggle room for the evolution deniers.

Which brings us to the first problem with Dawkins's positions: he is arrogant. It's one thing to say that the other side is wrong—maybe there's no divine, believers may turn out wrong—and quite another to denounce the other side as ignorant, stupid, insane and so worthless its arguments should not even be heard. (Sorry, I left out wicked.) Saying the other side's argument should not be heard is at best plugging your fingers into your ears, at worst the instinct to suppress free thought; it's amazing to hear a tenured Oxford don essentially calling for intellectual restrictions.

Two points. 1) When all the facts are on your side, when the opposition relies on hiding, misrepresenting, or outright lying about the evidence, it is intellectual dishonesty to say anything less than that the they are wrong. No "maybes", no fuzzy excuses, no bending over backward to give charitable interpretations of lunacy—the right thing to do is to squash it down hard. Dawkins is extremely good at that, and I applaud him for it. The soapy concessions and overly generous apologetics for creationism that we get in the media are exactly the reason it thrives, not because scientists are too in-your-face for our faint-hearted public. The American public avidly, even joyously revels in the uncompromising (and entirely false) bravado of our media's Bill O'Reillys and Ann Coulters…and the intelligent and well-spoken words of Richard Dawkins send them into self-righteous fury? Get real.

2) Easterbrook claims that Dawkins thinks the other side should not even be heard. This is false. All he provides to support that claim is that Dawkins did try to block the establishment of an endowed chair of theology at Cambridge. Good for him, I'd put up the same fight…and not because the public should not hear about it, but because the public already hears far too much about religion, and it's not the place for an institution dedicated to higher learning to also spread the gospel of religious dogma. Given that Easterbrook has actually read Dawkins' writing on the subject, we can exclude ignorance; on what shall we blame this misrepresentation, then—stupidity, insanity, or wickedness?

Easterbrook carries this rhetorical dishonesty further.

Dawkins uses sleight of hand when he tries to suggest that anyone who doubts any aspect of evolutionary thought, including the chance creation of life, is the sort of extremist who thinks all the different Galapagos finches came fully formed directly from the Garden of Eden. You can accept the basic notion of evolution and still have real questions about why the gift of life exists—witness Fred Hoyle, a highly accomplished modern scientist who did just that.

Speaking of sleight of hand…Dawkins is speaking specifically of creationists who deny the well-established evidence, not well-informed peers who argue about legitimate issues within biology. There are open questions and there is doubt and debate within those areas; Easterbrooks claim that his target is "anyone who doubts any aspect of evolutionary thought" is an amazing fib.

(It's also weird that he trots out Hoyle as an example, who may have been a great astronomer, but on the subject of evolution, he was loopy as a fruitbat.)

Read Dawkins' original comment in context, and Easterbrook's dishonesty is even more apparent. Does this sound like a jeremiad against any doubt of any aspect of evolutionary thought?

So to the book's provocation, the statement that nearly half the people in the United States don't believe in evolution. Not just any people but powerful people, people who should know better, people with too much influence over educational policy. We are not talking about Darwin's particular theory of natural selection. It is still (just) possible for a biologist to doubt its importance, and a few claim to. No, we are here talking about the fact of evolution itself, a fact that is proved utterly beyond reasonable doubt. To claim equal time for creation science in biology classes is about as sensible as to claim equal time for the flat-earth theory in astronomy classes. Or, as someone has pointed out, you might as well claim equal time in sex education classes for the stork theory. It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).

While Easterbrook is doing his rabble-rousing best to rile up his readers into hating that arrogant bastard Dawkins, he also doesn't bother to consider this revealing passage from the article he cites.

Not only is ignorance no crime, it is also, fortunately, remediable. In the same Times review, I went on to recount my experiences of going on radio phone-in talk shows around the United States. Opinion polls had led me to expect hostile cross-examination from creationist zealots. I encountered little of that kind. I got creationist opinions in plenty, but these were founded on honest ignorance, as was freely confessed. When I politely and patiently explained what Darwinism actually is, they listened not only with equal politeness, but with interest and even enthusiasm. "Gee, that's real neat, I never heard that before! Wow!" These people were not stupid (or insane, or wicked). They didn't believe in evolution, but this was because nobody had ever told them what evolution is. And because plenty of people had told them (wrongly, according to educated theologians) that evolution is against their cherished religion.

This is exactly right. We're all ignorant to different degrees about different things. Dawkins tends to be more right than wrong on the subject of evolution, but is probably more wrong than right on the subject of automobile repair. It's a strange attitude that some people have that pointing out their ignorance of certain subjects is a terrible insult, as if everyone is expected to be omniscient and infallible polymaths.

It is inappropriate to use the adjective "arrogant" for someone who is expressing his well-informed and readily supported opinion. I'd reserve "arrogant" for those criminal theologians who willfully claim expertise in biology, never having studied the subject in their lives, and use that false validation to fill their congregation's heads with lies.

Easterbrook makes another argument I've heard so often…that atheists who express their ideas strongly are bad for popularizing evolution. This is most frequently stated by creationist sympathizers and apologists for religion, and it's surprising that so many people fall for it. When creationists say, "He's oppressing me! That mean ol' Dawkins is so bad for your cause, why don't you get more good friendly Christians to speak for you?", I'm thinking we need to clone the man.

Dawkins complains in the article that so many people believe things about science that are off the wall—for example, that early humans co-existed with dinosaurs—because their science educations are poor. He'll get no argument from me on that. But I suspect one reason so many Americans have a poor understanding of evolutionary theory is that overbearing figures such as Dawkins talk down to them and act contemptuous of their religious beliefs. So people respond—perhaps quite rationally—by screening out the views of scientists whose motives they distrust. In this regard, it is telling that polls show Americans overwhelmingly accept many findings of modern research, such as the theories of relativity and of cosmic expansion. The scientists who favor these ideas generally aren't in the habit of mocking peoples' faiths, and so they are believed by the general public. If Dawkins's professional goal is "public understanding of science," he is a flop, seemingly trying his best to make worse what he is supposed to fix.

Didn't I already dispense with the phony claim that people will be turned off by vocal, strongly-principled advocates? Yes, I did. We can ignore that part of Easterbrook's bloviating.

What about the idea that people will be turned off by contempt for their religious beliefs? There's a germ of truth to that, but at the same time, let this atheist let you in on a little secret, not well appreciated by the public: they'll turn on anyone who doesn't believe in any gods, contemptuously or not. Try it. Tell someone that you don't believe Jesus was the son of God, even in the most non-judgmental, even tone of voice, and a majority will treat you as either a pariah or a potential convert. That's reality. What Easterbrook is asking for is that atheists be shooed back into the closet, that we should pander to his bigotry.

It's not going to happen. About half of all scientists are atheists or agnostics (and even that is an underestimate; most of the remaining, while believing in a god, are typically not very dogmatic about it and are best described as deists and unitarians and nominal members of other churches). While we may be an insignificant minority in most of public life, in the sciences we are, if not overwhelmingly dominant, a very substantial component of the profession. We should not try to sugarcoat that fact, and I think it is actually an obligation for freethinking scientists to make their ideas public. There's a simple message we have to get across to the Easterbrooks of this country:

Get used to it.

We are respectable supporters of evidence-based science. That we carry that philosophy over into our personal beliefs is entirely reasonable and righteous, and far more justifiable than any attempt to insert faith and superstition into our profession. Even those many people of faith who work in the sciences will tell you exactly the same thing: religion does not belong in the lab. Even honest, sincerely held faith has no place in science, and that appallingly bad huckster theology of the televangelists and faith healers and creationists and gantryesque frauds? Get thee behind me. If Easterbrook really wants to correct the arrogance and dishonesty endemic to the creation-evolution wars, he has picked the wrong target. I could list a dozen names for him, all who declare their authority derives from God, who are far more influential and politically active than Richard Dawkins, and all of whom have a platform based entirely on outright ignorance, stupidity, insanity, or wickedness…and always, arrogance.