Accommodationist philosopher Michael Ruse is now seriously defending the citizens of Tennessee voting on science and facts.

Michael Ruse once again shows us why accommodationists don't understand science and how it works, and don't want to understand it.

Accommodationists are still trying to spread their message even though pretty much no one but other accommodationists is listening.

Templeton's latest prize goes over like a lead zeppelin. They're trying to spin it as a grand PR victory anyway.

Biologos just found out what happens when you take a factual stand against religious zealots instead of mewing about vague, aspirational niceties.

The Framer-in-Chief is failing upwards to speak for America's geoscientists. It should be a wake up call for scientists to speak for themselves instead.

Templeton fellows keep making grand speeches promising to connect faith and science and failing miserably.

Turns out that one of the stories Chris Mooney used to build his case against angry atheists ruining science education for everyone was created out of thin air by a fabulist.

In an ironic turn of events, accommodationist Massimo Pigliucci gets lambasted for being offensive to believers for writing a book about separating junk science and belief from fact.

With friends like accommodationists, science advocates don't need any enemies.

Ayala shows us that the accommodationist ruse only works as long as no one can pin down your concrete views on where belief ends and science begins.

Chris Steadman and the (Non)Prophet Blog are very upset at my criticism and are ready to diligently dodge every one of my arguments.

Michael Ruse seems to be angling for some of that sweet, sweet Templeton money by talking out of both sides of his mouth. But mostly the side that slams science and atheists...

Professor Massimo Pigliucci is trying to make a case for accommodating believers railing against science and fact-based education and discourse with some very flimsy arguments...

According to David Scharfenberg, Ken Miller is the only sane, rational person in the debate about how evolution should be taught, a debate led almost exclusively by foaming-at-the-mouth irrational extremists on both sides.