I find it very curious that Pinsky takes such a biased approach in his comparative analysis of Bristish Evangelical Scientists with US Evangelical Scientists.

First he associates US Evanglical Scientists views with fundamentalist Muslims. Then he goes on to compliment the British Scientists for not being dragged into the "hotbed" of cultural issues as if such involvement is a bad thing. Yet he does not explain why such invovlement should be considered bad at all. However, the tone is clear as he is building his biased comparison.
Next, Pinsky seems to praise the Bristish Scientist for embracing theistic evolution. Now why should the adoption of such a view be praised? That is very simple: because it is very friendly to Darwinism. And any within the scientific community will tell you that if you oppose Darwinism, your crediblity is destroyed. The compromise with such a godless philosophy is self-evident and when it is coupled with recent behavior in the scientific community (just ask Ben Stein), it is easy to see why any Scientist who opposes anything that resembles Darwinism would be mocked. It would seem to me that this article is another attempt to discredit any Scientist who is determined to accept the truth of Scripture regarding a literal six-day creation as a scentifically valid position.
Finally, Pinsky drives the nail in the coffin when he associates US Scientists with "fundamentalists". There is hardly a word that is more insulting in evangelicalism today than the term "fundamentalist". As my grandpa used to say, "these are fighting words".

What Pinsky does not realize is that it is not our science that is to inform us of our religion, or to put it more accurately, to inform us of who God is and what He is like and the nature of what He has created. Rather, it is our religious views, that is to say, our views about God and Scripture that are to inform our Science. This is another case of faith being displaced by reason. I am reminded of Augustine's quote, "I believe so that I may understand." The epistemology inferred by Pinsky is clearly not supported by Scripture.

In summary, Pinsky seems to want to assume that the Bristish positions are supperior without actually making any case for why this is the case. Since he associates the views of global warming and Darwinism more closely with that of the British Scientists, he seems to be implying that this and this alone proves that they have advanced more the their US counterparts and therefore are more credible. Since this is the case, Pinsky seems to be saying that the US Evangelical Scientist has much to learn from their Bristish colleagues. Even his analysis of why the two groups are different only serves to beg the question. Pinsky offers no compelling argument for his view. Instead he makes one implication after another without attempting to establish a basis for his propositions.