Re: Washington Post makes agenda for science crystal clear

Rich wrote:

> Denyse, what you should be celebrating is that the Smithsonian is
> implictly
> agreeing with you that Sagan's Cosmos would be inappropriate for one
> of
> their events. This is because while you might be able to say it isn't
> religious you cannot say it isn't philosophical. Further, the
> Smithsonian is
> not the only ones granting this point that Dawkins-style Darwinism is
> just
> as inappropriate for the public schools as Intelligent Design.

I have seen a real change in focus within the scientific community over
the last 10 or more years. Many leaders in the scientific community
and many science organizations have come to understand the
destructiveness of the "warfare" view of science and faith. They are
becoming increasingly explicit that scientific descriptions do not
imply any rejection of the existence of the supernatural. The
scientific voice in Kansas has been almost completely unified in this
regard. Similarly I have found this to be the case with nearly all the
of scientific organizations with which I am involved. Scientists are
also increasingly willing to publically state their religious
commitments.

These are important changes in scientific culture.

Keith
Received on Fri Jun 3 12:20:26 2005