Okay, so Chris Mooney has just put a post with a numbered outline of his position on framing. In the comments he does two noteworthy things: he admits a lot of mistakes, including that Nisbet was wrong to tell PZ and Dawkins to be quiet, and asks for the numbers of points of disagreement.
It's hard to find a single numbered point that's definitely false. However, there are mistaken notions that seem implied in some of them, particularly 3, 5, 6, and 8. The two mistakes are:
(1) Thinking cognitive shortcuts are an incompatible alternative to science and evidence.
(2) Ignoring the lack of evidence for the claim that a strategy not based on science and evidence will accomplish much of anything (and ignoring the clear evidence that a science and evidence strategy works to at least some extent).
On (1): Even scientists use cognitive shortcuts. No scientist can do even a fraction of the experiments establishing the conclusions of his sub-discipline. They use the cognitive shortcut of trusting their colleagues have gotten things mostly right--and gotten them right by honest, able handling of the evidence.
We should work to convince people that scientists can be trusted to handle the evidence. And one way to do this is explain just enough of the science and evidence to show them how scientists get it right. I know in my own personal experience, what sealed the deal for me on the creationism issue was seeing how creationists regularly misrepresented the second law of thermodynamics. My impression is that a lot of people have had experiences like this.
This brings me to my second point: there's no reason to think we can get away without talking about evidence. What are the purely moral, religious, and economic arguments for, say, evolution or global warming? Where are the people actually persuaded by such arguments? Somewhere out there, Michael Shermer has a piece trying to provide conservative and Christian rationales for evolution, they come off as painfully lame. And while some people have come to accept evolution by thinking about moral and religious issues in the sense of removing barriers to trusting the scientists, I doubt these have ever been anyone's primary reason. Notably, it is scientists and not theologians who led the way in figuring out how life on Earth came to be. The only arguable examples of people accepting evolution for economic (or political) reasons typically involved highly dubious ideas about what the science showed, not something we want to be promoting. We can bullshit on these points, sure, but so can our opponents, and that leaves us with no rational expectation of coming out ahead.
If Mooney wants to help on the creation issue, and is worried about people just taking cues from their religious leaders, here's what I'd recommend he do: do some serious journalistic legwork, documenting the misinformation being spread by Evangelical churches and similar local groups. (For background, read an article I wrote about this problem here.) Put it in a book with accessible explanations of why what they're saying is false. While recognizing the need to keep it accessible, you need to actually explain what wrong with what's being claimed and not merely assert that it's wrong if you want to win anyone over. Then go around promoting the book with a focused message designed to reach people who may not buy it. If you like, think of it as framing the issue in terms of "religious hucksters vs. honest scientists." This is what I'd do if I were a journalist with one high-selling book already under my belt.
Why take this strategy? Well, for one thing, good science is what people actually care about, a fact the creationists understand surprisingly well. You don't hear them going around emphasizing the God & morality aspect of their position. Rather, their line (again, "frame," if you like) is that closed-minded members of the establishment are trying to supress the next big thing in science. We can't take for granted that Evangelical leaders can be talked into giving up on misinformation: Some parts of their world view clash too painfully with reality, and attacking science allows them to monger mysteries which, supposedly, only God can fill. Also, those Evangelical leaders who've softened their line on evolution seem largely motivated by a desire not to damage their own credibility, so turning up the heat on this front may actually push them onto your side. This solution would cut right to the root of the problem, do so in a packageable way, and keep you from being just another viewpoint shouting "God and morality!" to support your view.