RE: [asa] Jerry Coyne sides with Dawkins and Hitchens

Rich Blinne said:
"After we pull the arrows out of our collective backs, hopefully
*somebody* will listen. Maybe all this talk about people being tired of
the division is true"

I think the division is real, so it will not go away. I don't think
there's any way to reconcile an inerrant Bible with modern science,,,
and that's where the conflict is. I think what is needed is more debate
and discussion.

Just the other day I was hearing about the analysis on that T.Rex
bone... I think it was protein analysis. Someone asked the scientist
about this in regards with the evolution/creation debate, and she
expressed dismay with "having to go there." Instead of dreading these
kinds of questions, it would be good if scientists could address them
head-on eagerly,,, a major learning moment for the masses. Instead, the
topic is treated like a pesky mosquito.

...Bernie

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Rich Blinne
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 11:15 AM
To: PvM
Cc: Nucacids; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Jerry Coyne sides with Dawkins and Hitchens

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 11:32 AM, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:

The problem as I see it is that a well informed middle class, while
inherently necessary for a strong democracy, also becomes a
politically savvy population and an activist population, not dummed
down by fake 'controversies' about the lives of celebrities is a
politically 'dangerous' population. Give them food and games...
Distract them. Megachurches, YEC, all rely on a willing population,
both to accept the teachings as well as to give in tithes. It's an
industry of faith and there is little interest in actually educating
these people.

Such trends, which I believe are very clear in the United States are
worrisome if not threatening to a democracy.

I live in the evangelical subculture and I simply don't see this. I do
see the politicization of science but it is not limited to either the
right or evangelicals. For example, the Huffington Post is full of all
sorts of anti-scientific nonsense and don't get me started on Bill
Maher. I think part of the problem is how we define scientific literacy.
In Jerry's case, it's viewed merely as accepting particular scientific
doctrines.

Rather, what's lacking in American science education is the
understanding of the process of science, e.g. what is a theory, why is
peer review vital, etc. If the populace was educated in this way then
they would not be lead astray by some random poll of "scientists"
because they would know that any such poll is a priori invalid.
Furthermore, people educated in this fashion would also be able to
properly evaluate any science that emerges after high school.

The hard part is the current polarization of the American people.
Everybody is suspicious of everybody else. So, my evangelical friends
will not cede control to some scientific elite in the form of consensus
through peer review. This is where the ASA comes in and explain
religious people to scientific people and vice versa. After we pull the
arrows out of our collective backs, hopefully *somebody* will listen.
Maybe all this talk about people being tired of the division is true. I
sure hope so for all our sakes.

Rich Blinne
Member ASA

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue May 27 14:51:32 2008