Here is a link http://www.gazettetimes.com/articles/2006/09/25/news/community/7loc01horton.txt (http://www.gazettetimes.com/articles/2006/09/25/news/community/7loc01horton.txt)
Ohio State is coming down firmly on the side of teaching science in schools.
I found the article interesting, especially the observation:
QuoteNye said that evolution is not a debate in most industrialized countries. She said the United States is one of the few countries that have turned it into a political issue.
"In European countries, evolutionary science is not a political issue or part of a political agenda, whereas in the United States, evolution has become a matter of cultural politics," she said.
Might be interesting to speculate on why that might be. My guess is that it's because the European countries where religion has the power to affect the agenda, (Italy, Poland, Ireland for example), are Catholic. Unless or until the Pope changes the official view on evolution they have other policy priorities when it comes to pressing politicians.
I don't know. It seems to me that part of the reason for the difference is that Europe got rid of most of its religious fanatics by exporting them to America. ;) There must b some reason for the prevalence of religious extremism in the USA, or at least in parts of it.
Frankly I find it ironic that the country that has in many ways led the world in scientific endeavour over the last century or so has such a large proportion of people that seem to be embarking on a flight from reason. it is sad and more than a little bit scary.
Nick
There's an illuminated inscription in the ceiling of the rotunda at the Royal Ontario Museum that says "THAT ALL MAY KNOW HIS WORK".
While it may be a relic of an age when religion permeated our institutions (an age that I personally wouldn't want to repeat), I also take it as a reminder that religion and science aren't mutually exclusive, and more than that, that examining the natural world can help to augment and enrich a faith.
Too bad there are folks who disagree.
Science, and the advancement of science through education, bears so much responsibility for the existence of the human race. It's VITAL that science not be heavily burdened by religious barriers, only by moral barriers set up by scientists themselves. (Laymen don't understand the workings well enough to make most decisions, so no matter how much Joe Average wants to control research into certain areas [because it's against his religion] it's not something he should be able to do.) If any actions are immoral, terrifying, despicable...the body of reputable scientists will police itself.
Religion isn't all mumble-jumble, superstition or lies...thus the reasoning behind tolerance. Intolerant people=rude people, especially on this topic. No human is able to judge the spiritual values of another. That's a deity's job. And if you don't believe in religion, and have the need to shout it from the rooftops and tell others how wrong they are, you're no better than the Fundamentalists that are so despised for being closeminded. (What's right for A isn't always right for B. And A and B both have the right to believe as they wish.)
Where science and religion intersect...science needs to be left unmolested. Religion, based on FAITH, needs no proof. Religion not based on faith is philosophy, and that's a different topic.
How people can choose to denigrate that which they do not choose to believe is totally bizarre to me, not to mention uncouth, in the topics of religion and faith. (Politics, law, the spectrum of topics covered there...different. But calling names and flouncing away isn't the way to work things out, either... ::) Feh.)
And fanatics are everywhere. Ours have just had much more free reign in the US. ;D
I'm going to dissent a little on this one, in that I don't think you can leave the morality purely to scientists. They're too close to the work, and too bound up in it. For every Leo Szilard there's a Wernher von Braun.
Not getting at scientists here; was trained as a physicist myself.
Laymen may not understand the issues, but panels of bright people from across the spectrum can. That's what (in the UK) the House of Lords, and
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority are for. To quote from the latter's web page for example:
"To ensure that the HFEA has an objective and independent view, the HFE Act requires that the Chair, Deputy Chair and at least half of the HFEA Members are neither doctors nor scientists involved in human embryo research or providing infertility treatment."
I'm thinking that maybe Sibling Chatty's experience of the lobbying of the religious right has made her a little more skeptical than me about public common sense.
Quote from: beagle on September 29, 2006, 12:54:28 PM
Laymen may not understand the issues, but panels of bright people from across the spectrum can. That's what (in the UK) the House of Lords, and
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority are for.
I tend to agree with beagle on this one. Scientists, not always but often, get carried away with "can I?" and don't consider "should I?"...a point made somewhat in
Jurassic Park. While the average Joe isn't really qualified to assess the moral implications of science, that does not mean that ONLY scientists are capable of doing so.
Quote from: Sibling Chatty on September 29, 2006, 02:22:11 AM
And if you don't believe in religion, and have the need to shout it from the rooftops and tell others how wrong they are, you're no better than the Fundamentalists that are so despised for being closeminded. (What's right for A isn't always right for B. And A and B both have the right to believe as they wish.)
Hear! Hear!
I think the Founding Fathers (and Mothers) of the USofA had this firmly in mind when they wrote much of the Separation bits into the Constitution.
A Fanatic is a Fanatic is a Fanatic;
regardless of which brand of Fanaticism is being hyped, it's still
Snake Oil, in my opinion.
Quote from: beagle on September 29, 2006, 12:54:28 PM
I'm going to dissent a little on this one, in that I don't think you can leave the morality purely to scientists. They're too close to the work, and too bound up in it. For every Leo Szilard there's a Wernher von Braun.
Not getting at scientists here; was trained as a physicist myself.
Laymen may not understand the issues, but panels of bright people from across the spectrum can. That's what (in the UK) the House of Lords, and
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority are for. To quote from the latter's web page for example:
"To ensure that the HFEA has an objective and independent view, the HFE Act requires that the Chair, Deputy Chair and at least half of the HFEA Members are neither doctors nor scientists involved in human embryo research or providing infertility treatment."
I'm thinking that maybe Sibling Chatty's experience of the lobbying of the religious right has made her a little more skeptical than me about public common sense.
Oh, no single scientist or small group.
That's why I LOVE science, even if I don't understand vast amounts of it.
Peer review. If I 'invent' it and think it's the Ultimate good stuff, YOU, and every other scientist gets to 'review' it. And if most of you think it stinks, then I get to be another Duane Gish in the World of Science. :oops:
Then you drag in the rest of the disciplines, and they toss my Ultimate Stupid out...and I caon go become a crackpot and a Legend in my Own Mind!!
Quote from: Sibling Chatty on September 30, 2006, 01:55:17 AM
Then you drag in the rest of the disciplines, and they toss my Ultimate Stupid out...and I caon go become a crackpot and a Legend in my Own Mind!!
Atoms are made of spaceships, and I'm the new reborn Jesus. ;D
Yes, dear, you certainly are.
Who better?