Comments -- 3,000 character limit.
Having carefully read the three pieces on ID vs Science in the NYT last night at a very late hour, several things crystallized a bit in my thoughts.
- The articles do a really awful job of presenting the Science position. But maybe this isn't just the Times writers doing their 'both sides' thing very poorly. I seem to recall that in the Kansas Curriculum guidelines conflict hearings the Science community offered no positive or rebuttal testimony of substance.
- With substantial majorities of the people believing in some form of creationist/ID argument, it is very hard for the media to poke them in the eye with strong arguments. The media can't deal with this, any more than they can deal with pro/con-Iraq-war. It is way too complicated and emotional.
- The science community has to be found to be culpable for much of the ignorance on the issues. Where are the books, op-eds, PTA presentations, cable TV specials, etc. that present the (very convincing) evidence in detail of why evolution is a great explanation of things - because it can be backed by facts, and that science is not anti-religious but another sphere of human thinking entirely?
Yes, the NYT didn't do a great job, but I won't condemn them for making some attempt. Doing nothing clearly wouldn't be better. I'd give them a C minus for the effort (maybe D+).
As we worry about conservative religious fundamentalism gaining rather than losing in the Islamic world, and also in the US moving further under the banner of fundamentalist Christianity, a worthy question is why is this conjunction of fundamentalist, anti-science, anti-liberal-western-values religion happening now, in the 21st century after so much scientific, technical and liberal-democratic progress in the 20th century?
Are the wheels coming off the wagon of progress?
Hm, very interesting, although I think I would condemn the Times for even making the attempt. Especially if it's too difficult for them to do properly. Essentially, they've enshrined this thing as a "debate," rather than what it really is: a bunch of crackpots making pseudo-objections to a scientific theory they don't understand, or care to. You're right, the Times did a terrible job defending the scientific position -- had I not known better, and just read the Times series, I would've believed that the ID theorists actually made some plausible points.
At this point, though, you're totally right, the scientific community is going to have to blast back. Ignoring the ID creationists made sense for awhile -- why dignify their garbage with a response? -- but thanks to the Lysenkoists at the Times and elsewhere, this has taken on the aura of a "debate," and the scientific community will have to respond.
JimPortlandOR wrote, Where are the books...that present the (very convincing) evidence in detail of why evolution is a great explanation of things - because it can be backed by facts, and that science is not anti-religious but another sphere of human thinking entirely?
Actually, Stephen Jay Gould wrote such a book about the "nonoverlapping magisteria" of science and religion.
And I think it's common understanding among scientists that science cannot answer moral or ethical questions (any attempts to do so are labelled "the naturalistic fallacy").
And I just read a post in a blog the other day, probably a blog mostly devoted to evolution and science, pointing out that some plant species is endangered in Hawaii from foreign plant invasion, and the theory of natural selection doesn't tell us whether we should try to do anything about it---that's a moral question which science can't address.
Point is that this kind of discussion is too subtle for most of the media---if you can't fit a thought into 20 sec or less, you're not allowed to express it.
Commenting by HaloScan
