Since I've weighed in on this issue before, at least some of you know my
feelings on the matter. For me, the core problem is that the public at
large does not understand how science "works", and the resulting
misconceptions color both sides of any argument involving science. I think
Rick Tarara made the correct point by suggesting that better science
education in the middle and high school years, emphasizing the PROCESS of
science, would help. Of course the logistical problem there is that NCLB
seems only to be concerned with english and math, and pretty much everything
else is going to be offered up on the altar of expedience.
Bottom line: Science is a process that helps us to build models that
approximate reality to varying levels of accuracy. However good a model
seems to be, however, the process demands that we remain open to the
possibility that said model is not, ultimately, "right" in the layman sense
of the word. We can't avoid the fact that what we accept remains a
"belief", but as John Denker points out, there are levels of "belief". The
public doesn't really understand the distinction; they either think science
is infallable (defined as being TRUE, RIGHT, CORRECT, or FACT), or they
latch on to the uncertainties as evidence that science cannot be trusted.
It doesn't help when, in their frustration with the second group, science
people try to push the first group's interpretation of things.
I remain convinced that, given an accurate understanding of science, the
public would find little reason to either blindly trust the pronouncements
of science (or maybe more accurately, the reporting of such by the media),
or to take violent issue with it. I think that would be a good thing. I
also remain convinced that the whole breadth of things that fall under the
heading of "evolution" only threaten a small handful of Christians, and any
widespread support for their position can be avoided. Unfortunately, I
don't think that we've done a very good job of cutting off that support. On
the contrary, I think that many go out of their way to be antagonistic to
anyone who professes their faith. I've been made uncomfortable on a number
of occasions here by the apparent license some feel they have to criticise
or poke fun at believers. It's unfortunate that even educated people cannot
seem to rise above simple pettiness or to curb their personal smugness.
And it isn't just religion, of course; global warming as being a man-made
effect is another area where unpopular points of view seem to require
routine attack. Anyone spouting a contrary view is, apparently, deluded,
ill-informed, or a shill for "big oil". And what difference does it really
make? If we ARE primarily responsible, does anyone actually think there's a
chance in hell that we can get things under control? With China and India
entering explosive expansions of their economies? With the villification of
nuclear power trumping the ecological damage done by harvesting and burning
fossil fuels? With an ever-accelerating world population? Pardon me for
being a pessimist, but it seems to me that at this point it's inevitable
that we will find SOME way kill ourselves off - If good old mother nature
doesn't do it for us first.