preachy high-browed post
I was reading this article this morning about the recent republican debate in which 3 of the candidates - fortunately the lower tier ones with little chance of actually getting the nomination - indicated that they don't accept evolution.
Aside from specific criticism of some of those candidates, the author talks about how the American public is falling behind - way behind - in its knowledge of, and interest in, the sciences, something that's not being helped by politicians who advocate supernatural explanations over scientific ones.
(I've also read other pieces about how the US is showing a great decline in the number of people going into science or engineering programs, and a greater dependence on recruiting foreign researchers.)
A few of thoughts occur to me.
i) Considering both science and social policy, the US today is kind of like Russia was in the 80's, holding onto mostly outdated ideas while the world advanced and changed. With hope things won't continue that way, but the possibility is there.
ii) Science-bashing today by religious conservatives reminds me a great deal of science-bashing by liberal post-modernists in the 90's. Both groups tended to bewail the implications of scientific fact, rather than engaging it directly, or showing any real understanding of the field they attack.
iii) I don't understand why, in all the public bickering about evolution and creation, no one points out that the two ideas are compatible. How do we know that God doesn't use evolution as a tool to build and develop things? That raises the question of why he would do it that way and not another. But Christians often say that Gods reasons for doing things in the present are inscrutable and not immediately apparent, I don't see why that couldn't be applied to to natural history as well.
Aside from specific criticism of some of those candidates, the author talks about how the American public is falling behind - way behind - in its knowledge of, and interest in, the sciences, something that's not being helped by politicians who advocate supernatural explanations over scientific ones.
(I've also read other pieces about how the US is showing a great decline in the number of people going into science or engineering programs, and a greater dependence on recruiting foreign researchers.)
A few of thoughts occur to me.
i) Considering both science and social policy, the US today is kind of like Russia was in the 80's, holding onto mostly outdated ideas while the world advanced and changed. With hope things won't continue that way, but the possibility is there.
ii) Science-bashing today by religious conservatives reminds me a great deal of science-bashing by liberal post-modernists in the 90's. Both groups tended to bewail the implications of scientific fact, rather than engaging it directly, or showing any real understanding of the field they attack.
iii) I don't understand why, in all the public bickering about evolution and creation, no one points out that the two ideas are compatible. How do we know that God doesn't use evolution as a tool to build and develop things? That raises the question of why he would do it that way and not another. But Christians often say that Gods reasons for doing things in the present are inscrutable and not immediately apparent, I don't see why that couldn't be applied to to natural history as well.