Sad state indeed that the religionists have to give their top prize to a non-confrontational atheist.  They couldn’t find a top scientists who is a believer?  What Rees said is technically true, but it looks more and more like: “It’s possible but not very likely to have religious beliefs and be a good scientists.’

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I am very surprised at the reactions to this, particularly Dawkins’. This is about more than merely an individual and an institution, as Dawkins avers. This event addresses the extreme polarization between science and religion, and it blurs that separation. Better still, it de-polarizes by having the religious organization—voluntarily—coming to the side of secular science, not the other way around. It’s not tantamount to capitulation, but in negotiating terms, it’s a position ceded.

Let’s not amplify miniscule negatives when the big picture is decidedly positive.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I agree with John Frum. There are so many worse problems out there when it comes to the old religion-vs-science debate. For example, I know dozens of people with life-science degrees who, somehow, are young-Earth creationists. I have yet to figure out how they earned those degrees without seeing/accepting the big picture. I have no problem with Ayala or Lord Rees.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

An atheist gets given a million pounds for reputable scientific work.

Oh, wait, a Christian org gave it to him. I guess that makes it horrible.

I say, let Templeton give their money to atheists any time they want to. Me next!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.