Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Richard Dawkins Answers Reddit Questions



I strongly agree with everything John Clement says here with one important exception. Like John, I believe we do a grave disservice to science by saying transparently ridiculous things like "there is no evidence for Intelligent Design." Those who subscribe to ID see virtually nothing BUT evidence for their beliefs. The only relevant point is that ID is manifestly NOT science because it is inconceivable that anyone would ever find evidence AGAINST it.

The only point of disagreement I have is with John's claim that it is a "mislabeling" to call science "liberal." I could take the sarcastic, if not also defensible, position that "reality has a liberal bias," but I will note only that science requires above all intense skepticism, openness to new data, and willingness to change one's viewpoint in the face of evidence against one's cherished positions, traits that I have no trouble whatsoever characterizing as "liberal." I don't deny the existence of "religious scientists," but I would maintain that anyone who brings traditional religious habits and "ways of knowing" into the lab with them, at the very least operates under a very significant handicap.

John Mallinckrodt
Cal Poly Pomona

On Nov 16, 2010, at 7:54 AM, John Clement wrote:

Science educators need to steer clear of being confrontational about
religion. We teach science, not religion. When science educators claim
that science invalidates religion, they immediately activate paradigms which
will turn students off to what they say about science. If students ask for
your religious position, you can give it in a matter of fact fashion with a
tolerant attitude. People will distrust your scientific message if you are
activist about your anti or pro religious message. That is what is going on
in Republican circles. Science is being mislabeled as "liberal" despite the
fact that there are socially and/or economically conservative individuals in
science. Actually I suspect the socially liberal, economically conservative
person is quite common in science.

Anyone who wishes to see hard data on religion in American public life
should go the Pew Foundation.
<http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_category.aspx?id=318>
They show the results of many surveys. I suspect they would be called
liberal because they do not make value judgments, but rather report the
facts. Unfortunately newspapers that try to keep value judgments confined
to the editorial pages are often called liberal.

I don't think any of us condone nasty letters, but scientists should not put
forth their religious opinions as being hard scientific fact. When they do
that they harden the opposition. There are many scientists who do have
religious convictions. I would mention John Leonhardt who has a program on
many NPR stations and is both a scientist and an Episcopalian. We create
models of the world, not "truth".

John M. Clement
Houston, TX