<Good. But I'm talking about the popular culture ... things you see in the news, editorials, idiots wishing one another "Happy Darwin Day". >
LOL... that's few and far between... but again, I think that's simply because Darwin is more visable in the popular media than say Einstein at the moment in this country simply because evolution IS more visable. In time that could completely change (new info comes out on ID, etc) or even flip flop... something interesting bringing physics back to the forefront for example.
In FACT... in the new age spirituality population (exploding) physics books are making Einstein, Bohr (with his Yin Yang crest), David Bohem (lectures, interviews, books with J. Krishnmurti. etc) very popular with book sales surging. This trend is just starting ("what the bleep do we know").
<Would be nice if scientists who think that would say so publicly.>
To do so would be to weigh in where they don't belong... just like Dennett and Dawkins... and also leave them open to the appearance that they too want to be "rock star scientists"... or are jelous. Good scientists are doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing. Ignoring these topics. JMO of course.
<Where was there any church opposition there?>
You're kidding right? "The Church", ie. Rome has opposed free flow of information including scientific inquiry on many fronts and many levels through time (see below). That's the point. That's why IMHO it's not surprising that there are still scientists that ASSUME that anything religionists gravitate towards (ID is a great example) is poppycock without even looking. Can't blame them. Once burned... fire bad!
<I beg to differ. There are only a few instances one can point to where a religious institition did something anti-science - Galileo for isntance.>
We completely disagree on this point... Galileao was just the most public example of systemic dogmatism. I'm not even going to go into it... if you really think that there really isn't much to talk about... although you may want to read the points that Marin Luther nailed into the church door for a starter. Personally, I will (as a Catholic who has recent and extensive knowlege of the RCIA process) say that even todays beliefs, mass, tradition, and dognma ALL are infused with outdated, ignorant, and even intentionally (maybe not by the current practicioners, but clearly by those who started the traditions) misleading and controlling mechanisms leading straight AWAY from the truth and towards personal and institutional gain. For example, the practice that ONLY the (Catholic of course) priest can absolve one from his/her sins for example is still taught and practiced today... despite the obvious fallacy.
< He's not looking for bogeymen, he says religion is evil and should be suppressed.>
Cause the thinks he found the boogyman... see above for and example... I've got ample more.
<I know of no prominent scientific figure that has publicly contradicted Dawkins.>
You're kidding right? What's he gonna say? "Hey, I believe in god"? So??? There can BE no debate scientifically, since no one can even DEFINE god, let along measure, observe... etc. So what's the point.?
DAK |
