Posted on 04/19/2006 3:57:51 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
My all-time favorite is the "Battle of the Jay-Walking All-Stars" segment where one contestant identified a picture of the Iwo Jima memorial as a picture of the first moon landing.
There is at least at much for ID as Evolution, neither can be proved is my point so why should science take a position, when the arguments are flying inside the scientific community on the meaing of the evidence?
The anti-Republican (and implicitly anti-conservative slant) should be of concern, not just for the future of conservatism and the Republican party (something which I, and nearly else here, has rehashed a hundred times before), but for the future of scientific literacy. Unlike the rest of you, I'm not a scientist nor do I have any formal scientific training. I'm just a rhetorician. But my particular academic training plus my layman's status may give me a unique perspective on this issue. The way I see it, part of the problem isn't just that the Republican party or conservatism are increasingly seen as anti-science; it's also that too many laypeople see science as hostile to their traditions and values, and for this reason, increasingly find themselves alienated from it. It's bad enough that blacks and other minorities are discouraged from pursuing science because it is perceived as being "white", but now, those groups are further discouraged, along with the majority, because science is perceived as "anti-religious" (something the article fails to mention is that blacks, Hispanics, and other visible minorities are also among the most devoutly religious groups in America), and for a large part of the population, because it is perceived as being "liberal". This is the impression I have received from many of many debates with creationists on FR, who grumble about "liberal scientists" in the public eye (as on this thread here). Although it is both the right and responsibility of scientists, as citizens, to speak out on politics, I fear that the public backlash on science may be a consequence of such outspokenness. Worse yet, instead of simply expressing politically liberal viewpoints, many scientists engage in ad homneim attacks against conservatives in general, declaring that conservatives are "too stupid" to be scientists or to even understand science, which only makes things drives the general public further away. What can be done, then? Well, first of all, scientists in the public eye need to recognize the consequences of their speaking out, to know their audiences, and that what they say will have multiple meanings to different audience members. While they should be prevented from expressing their political views, they should recognize the consequences of voicing them. Secondly, there has been a widely expressed question in the past two years: Where are all the conservative scientists? They don't exist, smugly say the liberals, who predominate among politically vocal scientists, including scientists who blog. But they do exist, as FR demonstrates, and they need to speak louder-much louder than they have so far. They need to let the public know that science is objective and universal and independent of any political belief system, and that it can be appreciated and understood by everyone. We hear so much about the need for women and minority scientists to serve as "role models" to encourage underrepresented groups; conservative and Republican scientists need to do the same (they may also be underrepresented, but how underrepresented is unknown to me). More conservative scientists need to organize themselves into coherent political organizations in order to provide strategies to educate politicians and the public, to start blogging more(nearly all scientists who blog are liberal, but there are exceptions, such as Razib at Gene Expression, Lubos Motl at the world's best physics blog, and a certain chemist), and basically let their voices be heard more in the mainstream of both the news media and scientific community. This won't solve the problem, but it may encourage greater public curiosity and appreciation for the importance of science in political understanding and decision-making.
The human sense of sight is not acute enough to directly observe genetic changes...
That is the truth...
Other nations have "compulsory attendance, compulsory tax payer funded government schools," without getting all worked out about evolution.
If the US is the exception, then there is something about the US causing it- maybe it's the lack of a Established Church. I mean if the Governemnt declares it's not important to have a Religion, then maybe people become uneasy and insecure.
What does "ERV" stand for?
Or, as the same concept has been expressed by others:
Johnny Cochran: I have yet to see the prosecution offer an "evidence" in this court that cannot be distilled on the simplistic template of "physical traces and previous actions are sufficient evidence of my client's guilt."
Mayor Nagin: I have yet to see the pundits offer an "evidence" in their stories that cannot be distilled on the simplistic template of "snafus in the evacuation are sufficient evidence of my incompetence."
Iraqi Information Minister: I have yet to see the media offer an "evidence" in this court that cannot be distilled on the simplistic template of "the pictures of American troops in Baghdad are sufficient evidence that I am lying my ass off."
Far be it for me to add to the vitriolic fervor. I guess I'll just join the mob and storm Dr. Frankenstein's castle - butn, pillage, rape.
Better than to bandy words with someone as agnostic as F dot.
That's what I meant to say! Sorry too, about the crappy formatting!
No evidence for genetic change placemarker.
It's a paltry belief in nothingness that masquearades as faith in Science.
If creationists believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster, then the religionists of Evolutionism believe in a Boiling Primordial Spaghetti Sauce...
I believe you've missed the point.
I don't think it's the state of the schools. I think its more along the lines of elemntary and high school students just don't have a sufficient background to understand science. Science isn't easy and it isn't simple. On your other point. Science and the religious right both hold crystal reading, astrology and other such stuff in contempt, but for opposite reasons. Science thinks it's quakery, but some Christians believe those things really work, but are the product of Satanic powers. I've seen sermons where a fiery pastor condemns these things for being evil, but never condemns them for being false.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.