Most people would laugh at you if you were to say that, "Some scientists are astrologers, therefore science and astrology are compatible." There's a serious logical flaw in that statement. It probably has a name but I can't think of it right now.
Chris Mooney sides with the accommodationists in the fight over how scientific organizations should behave Atheists for Common Cause With the Religious On Evolution. That's fine, he's entitled to his opinion.
What he's not entitled to is blatantly illogical arguments like the following.
First, I don’t see anything particularly “philosophical” about the accommodationist stance. Rather, holding that there is no necessary conflict between faith and science is an empirical matter: There are a vast number of different religions traditions in the world, and a still more vast number of ways in which different people profess and live out their faiths. In some of these traditions, and for some of these people, there is stark conflict with science; in other traditions, and for other people, there isn’t. That’s just a fact, and one that can be demonstrated simply by identifying any number of scientists who are religious, any number of religious leaders and denominations which embrace evolution, and so on.There are religious people who are scientists. That's a fact, but it doesn't necessarily mean what Chris Mooney thinks it means.
It means the same thing as saying that some Intelligent Design Creationists are scientists. That's also a fact.
Please, let's stop using illogical arguments in this discussion. We can all agree that there are Theistic Evolutionist scientists, Young Earth Creationist scientists, Intelligent Design Creationist scientists, and scientists who believe in astrology and homeopathy. There are even scientists, as Chris knows, who deny global warming.
You can't draw any conclusion from those facts about whether science is compatible with all those beliefs.
[Image Credit: Astrology]