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 Part 1



I suspect this is going to be too long, so I'm going to split it into two
parts...

-----Original Message-----
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
[mailto:phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of
Spinozalens@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2010 2:25 PM
To: phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Richard Dawkins Answers Reddit Questions

RM
I made some statements about the nature of science, with which I HOPE we
Are in agreement.

)))))))))))))))

BZ
No, I don't agree that Science and religion both are grounded in faith.
Science is grounded in prediction religion in faith. I think faith, at least

in a religious context, is not a good thing though perversely not having
faith somehow makes one immoral for religionists.

)))))))))))))))))))))))))))

RM
Well... Since I never said "Science and religion both are grounded in
faith", I remain a little confused about this point of "disagreement".



I said that there are people who feel it is their duty to debunk religion.
Since you see religion as being "toxic", that suggests that you should be
numbered among them, but if I'm wrong about that, I'm sure you'll let me
know. Again, no disagreement that I can see.

)))))))))))))

BZ
I consider myself one of those "New Atheists." I am good friends with Dr
Victor Stenger I manage his discussion list. So guilty as charged. But I am
not trying to bring this point of view here,


)))))))))))))

RM
Unfortunately, that is exactly what you appear to be doing, so here I
disagree with YOU.


))))))))))))

BZ
my concern is with the sorry
state of education in the United States, especially science education which
I
think this is largely because of well funded right wing extremism and
religious fundamentalism.

)))))))))))))))))))))))))))

RM
But this group has ALWAYS been with us. Why is it NOW that they are
suddenly such a problem?


))))))))))))))))))))))))0\

BZ
I didn't mean to create a strawman argument, I apologize for this. Also of
course there is no certainty in science, the very basis of science rejects
any notion of certainty.

))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

RM
Yet you repeated the "both are grounded in faith" strawman argument again
above. Oh well... I'm glad we agree on "no certainty", because this is
crucial to the issue.


You say that "science teachers avoid teaching anything about evolution",
But that certainly isn't the case way up here in New York. So here we
disagree
to some extent, but this was, again, not something I wrote.



)))))))))))))))))))

BZ
I lived in New York (Newburg) for over 33 years raising two children,

))))))))))))))))))

RM
I find that fascinating since I've spent essentially my whole life in
Newburgh, having been born and raised here, worked as a teacher (physics and
chemistry) in its public schools for about twenty years, and am currently
retired and living here. I, too, raised two children (and I also sent them
to the Newburgh schools). Evolution was taught there when I took it (1961),
as well as when my children attended (1990's). Btw, you spelled Newburgh
wrong! ;-)

))))))))))))))))))

BZ
evolution was downplayed in the public school.

))))))))))))))))))

RM
I obviously disagree. It was presented as the process by which organisms
change over time. Examples were provided. Fossil records were discussed.
What more do you want?

)))))))))))))))))

BZ
Here in Florida it's much worst.

)))))))))))))))))

RM
That may very well be. However, have not Fundamentalists ALWAYS existed
there? Why is it only NOW that you're having such a terrible problem?


By "Creationism", I suspect you mean "Creation Science"? I doubt that would
have ever had sufficient support to go anywhere had not moderate Christians
been unnecessarily alienated.


From my point of view, the problem is the extent of GROWTH of opposition
to
science over the years. Exactly WHY has this occurred, and can it be
reversed? I contend that the bulk of "opposition" consists of people who
could be swayed from opposition if they didn't feel that their beliefs were
under attack. The rallying point, for both sides, is, of course, the issue
of evolution.

))))))))))))))0

BZ
I know this is a popular point of view and I understand its attraction. But
I don't see how you can actually teach evolution and the scientific method
and not undermine religion. The religious fundamentalists understand this,
we need to also.

))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

RM
Well, Bob, I'm religious, believe in GOD, am willing to entertain the notion
that there was a Creator. That didn't prevent me from loving science,
majoring in it, and eventually, teaching it. I also think I understand how
science works, and knowing that it does not deal in certainty or absolute
truth, means that I'm not treatened by it. What DOES bother me, is people
who claim or imply that anyone who is religious must be a nut because
science has PROVEN there was no GOD, nor a Creation. Who claim that the
fact that there is an evolutionary process at work means, unequivocally,
that there is no GOD and anyone who thinks otherwise is a misguided fool.
THAT'S the kind of thing that would push even ME into opposition.


You, for example, state, "when you look at the percentage of Americans who
believe in creationism we see that science education in the United States
is
a dismal failure." Now I find that an interesting comment. So is (one of)
the purposes of science education to eliminate the belief in a Creation?
If
it is, then I can see why a growing number of Christians, in particular,
would take offense. I personally don't see that as a legitimate goal of
science education. I want students to understand the process involved in
science.