I hope to write some more later this week. One would think with my employment change that I would be writing more, but instead I am busier. Two freelance gigs this week and one of them is profitable. :)
But before I head off, let me thank Zalm and Leighton for their substantive comments on the challenges between religion and science. I understand some of the difficulties, but am short on solutions. During a recent party, a few scientists discussed the problem of evolution (they remained puzzled and annoyed, I think, by ID) and admitted that the scientific community had done a bad job of educating the public. After all, if the mantra of "if evolution works, then why are there still monkeys" persists, then many of the critics don't really understand the process they are attacking.
That sounds familiar to me, as SOF has often noted that the public really doesn't understand the historical method either and so are easily distracted by the David Barton's pseudo-history.
So, if any of you have good answers and solutions to the above problems, please pass them forward.
1 comment:
Well stated Leighton. The only problem I see with that is most people probably don't want to fix public discourse. They are happy in their "comfort zones", and with the simplistic answers instead of the complex ones. Knowing the full details means they would have to be willing to think instead of having some leader or other talking head think for them. Much like too many parents want teachers and the government to parent for them rather than taking responsibility for what their kids watch, or teaching their kids the difference between violence in video games and reality. Let the parents teach their kids how to behave. Let the government monitor what TV shows are OK and what video games are "dangerous" to play. Then they have someone else to blame when something goes wrong. They were, after all, just following someone else.
Post a Comment