I'd like to talk about science. A fellow blogger notified me of a C-SPAN Book TV show of interest. He does this on a regular basis. We don't agree on many things but we seem to share a lot of interests.
Anyway, he sent me this link and the time of the show (last evening at 10 PM EDT)...
While I was watching, the author spoke of a disparity he found (though he kept saying "we", it wasn't clear who "we" were) in the American public's understanding, and acceptance, of science. One of the things he mentioned was the influence of religion in that disparity.
He brought up the debate between creationism and evolution as an example. Now, you must realize that most scientists and virtually all those involved in the science of biology and anthropology accept evolution as an absolute. And probably the majority of us accept it without any deep consideration about what it means to those who have strong religious beliefs.
Personally, I cannot understand why it is such a contentious issue. Not because I believe it is a reasonable explanation of how modern man came about but because I do not see how it impacts anything of importance in daily life.
It seems to me that, if you are strongly religious and your religion rejects the theory of evolution, you aren't likely to end up in any scientific field which depends on it as a foundation.
If you are an average person, the debate has no real impact on your life. Whatever you believe to be the origin of man, you can still be a mechanic, a salesman, a secretary, a nurse, even a doctor or nuclear physicist.
So why was that important to the author (and the collective "we" of which he claimed to be spokesman) in explaining the disparity he was concerned with?
I have known many strongly religious people who totally rejected evolution but had no problem with understanding science and who even used the scientific method in their work. Just because they rejected evolution it didn't mean they rejected all the advances that science has made.
Why would it?
A Night Unremembered
7 years ago