Watching all this unfold [the "New Atheist" attacks on religion], we couldn't see how such battles advance the cause we centrally care about: The need to focus on science and its centrality to our future.

There is so much important work to do, and in this context, how can it possibly help to have leading scientists and science defenders busy assaulting religious beliefs?

Put simply, it can't. So we decided to take a stand.

The New Atheism has become a counterproductive movement, dividing us when we ought to be united. And this movement is not really about science, although it often aligns itself in this way. Science, alone, isn't capable of saying whether God exists, and most scientists don't obsess about such questions. Atheism is a philosophy that goes beyond mere science--a philosophy that its adherents have every right to hold, but that will never serve as a common ground that we can all stand upon.

The common ground, instead, must be science in its broadest sense--a shared body of facts we can all agree about, however we may differ about the spiritual. Yet this common ground itself is at risk if we let science and faith be in conflict.

Leading institutions like the National Academy of Sciences, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Center for Science Education see no need to challenge religious faith. It isn't part of their job description nor is it helpful to the important endeavors they're already engaged in. The New Atheists are the upstarts here and seem to want these organizations to change their policies and approach--but they haven't yet succeeded.

Next time you see the news media cover "science versus religion" as if it's a battle, write or call in and say why that's simplistic. The next time you find a scientist criticizing religious belief, email or call up and ask why it isn't enough for us all to agree about the facts of science.

The twins have shown that they are not just reasonable people who happen to disagree with us on important issues. That would be fine. But they have no rational arguments relating to the issues of substance; instead, they are purveyors of hatred and bigotry who choose to demonise opponents. They choose to treat us as beyond the pale of substantive discussion of our ideas. Well, we are entitled to say what we think of them; we are also entitled to go on making our substantive points, patiently, civilly, and reasonably, as we have done throughout.

It will take more than these two privileged nitwits with bright, toothy smiles to get us to shut up.