Within this article, I think there are several other points worthy of our discussion. First, according to the author:
Zimmerman thinks the best way to change this mindset is for scientists to step back from the debate and hand the reins over to religious leaders.Since the debate is about the religious implications to these existential origins, leave that discussion to theologians and religious leaders. Science should not be distracted by this religious in-fighting.
At the same time, certain atheist arguments premised on evolution actually are harmful to science in the long run, and in this manner, Zimmerman takes issue with Richard Dawkins' approach to atheism. Against Dawkins, Zimmerman believes that a strong understanding of evolution does not inevitably lead to atheism - it can be reconciled within theology - and, he worries that Dawkins' needless pitting of science against religion forces many otherwise receptive people to reject science all together:
And while he respects Dawkins, he believes his message—understanding of evolutionary processes inevitably leads to atheism—has done more harm than good for scientific literacy.Did I mention that Zimmerman is an atheist and, by training, an evolutionary biologist?
“He has a polarizing effect on the debate with his argument that science must lead you to atheism,” Zimmerman said. “He is a proselytizing atheist, who uses his position as a scientist to discuss atheism.”