The National Center for Science Education has a policy of trying to accommodate to religion, telling people that evolution really isn't incompatible with religion. It's their official position, and supported in some quarters. This has been criticized by quite a few scientists and atheists, for example Sean Carroll and Jerry Coyne, think that this is wrong and that the NSCE should not take any official position on religion, but stick to the science. To quote the former:
But why are atheists considered the uncompromising ones? They are simply asking religion to not get into everyone else's business. It's the same thing with prayers in school. Nobody is trying to prevent religious people from praying in their sparetime, they are just asking them not to impose their rituals on everyone else (education is after all compulsory).In the real world, scientists have different stances toward religion. Some of us think that science and religion are (for conventional definitions of science and religion) incompatible. Others find them perfectly consistent with each other. (It’s worth pointing out that “X is true” and “People exist who believe X is true” are not actually the same statement, despite what Chad and Chris and others would have you believe. I’ve tried to emphasize that distinction over and over, to little avail.)
In response to this situation, we uncompromising atheists have a typically strident and trouble-making idea: organizations that bill themselves as “centers for science education” and “associations for science” and “academies of science” should not take stances on matters of religion. Outlandish, I know. But we think that organizations dedicated to science should not wander off into theology, even with the best of intentions. Stick with talking about science, and everyone should be happy.