@MATT,
Basically, Matt, you fired a shotgun and I’ll mostly duck out of the way. You don’t appear to be looking for a conversation.
Almost nothing of what you said appears to be a direct response to what I wrote here, except your statement than I failed to point out that Americans mostly believe historical myths about Scopes, Galileo, and other stuff. If you were more familiar with my work, both here on BioLogos and elsewhere, then you probably wouldn’t direct such a comment to me. If you want to pursue that particular point further, Matt, then please first take a look at these earlier columns:
http://biologos.org/blog/an-obituary-for-the-warfare-view-of-science-and-religion (please note that I was one of the authors of this collection, a set of writings that directly addresses your concern about historical myths)
http://biologos.org/blog/introducing-ted-davis – and you might enjoy listening to the podcast interview that is linked in the penultimate paragraph. There I say a great deal about the “conflict” myth and how my work is all aimed at debunking it.
Also, tomorrow or Wednesday I have a column directly on the “Warfare Thesis” that will probably interest you.
After you see those columns, Matt, then perhaps you will re-consider the basis for your complaint about my column. I can’t say everything in one place. Or many places, for that matter.
I also reply to this, Matt, though it wasn’t really directed at my column:
“Biologos says nothing about the appealing treatment of say, Guillermo Gonzalez or Michael Reiss. Of course Christian members of the Royal Society said nothing in Rieiss’ defense as well. Which clearly indicates that religious belivers, even if they are at the top of their game are suspect in the scientific world (look at some of the comments about collins when he was promoted). However biologos will rant to the moon if someone is inconvenienced for believing in evolution.”
Matt, it’s well known among ID folks that I wrote two very critical snail letters to the president of Iowa State concerning the witch hunt against Guillermo Gonzelez–the first letter when Hector Avalos circulated his wholly inappropriate petition, and the second after the tenure decision was announced. As I say, this is well known–Guillermo has seen both letters.
As for my friend Michael Reiss (BBC - Will & Testament: Michael Reiss and the Royal Society), I expressed umbrage on some sites where he was being disrespected, though I wrote no letters.
Finally, Matt, I dare say your comment here is entirely misplaced: “Biologos must stop being so dogmatic and arrogant and make an attempt to engage with the larger religious community.” Have you been reading us lately? Have you seen our engagement with Southern Baptist theologians, or our engagement with Discovery, or Deb Haarsma’s sincere offer to have breakfast with Ken Ham?
Have you followed any of my other columns and series? Here’s the list: http://biologos.org/blog/author/davis-ted. Let me offer you a challenge, Matt: show mere where the lump sum of my writing for BioLogos, all together, has even as much dogmatism and arrogance than just one month’s worth of posts from (say) Uncommondescent. I bet you can’t do it. Disagree with us as much as you wish, Matt, but be as fair with us (and my columns) as you want us (and me) to be fair with others.
Please let me know if you take me up on this.