re: #108 Bob Levin

I read all of Coyne’s post, and I think that Melanie Phillip’s entire article in the Spectator is much more representative of what she is trying to say. I wrote in another post that I believed she is trying to have a reasonable discussion bringing together the worlds of science and religion together. I believe her response in the Spectator reinforces my assertion. But this isn’t just an academic question, because it frequently affects public policy and schools’ curriculum. And I suppose this is what raises everyone’s dander. It should. It’s an issue of where private beliefs should affect the public domain—there isn’t a clear answer. It’s also an issue of opportunism, that the creationists that she speaks of will either build or hop on the ID bandwagon, and she mentions this. But for her, ID is simply an idea that Gd exists, not science per se, and she doesn’t see why this belief should preclude her from taking part in scientific discussions. And she also notes that there are people from the world of science who wish to take part in religious discussions—making the religious discussions more interesting. There may be genuine battles between ID and school boards, but this, I believe, is just one woman’s opinion. That is how I read her article.

I just hate to see anyone adding fuel to the fire of the creationists. And I think there is danger here. I remember a Frontline a few years ago where in a high-school there was a strong clique of fundamentalist’s children that were rejecting some of the science teachings based on their religion.

In short, give these people one inch and they’ll take a parsec.

Once everyone’s completely confused about what science really is will it even be safe to cross a bridge or board an airplane or undergoe surgery?

Will we see structures that are supposedly safer because they’re “blessed” or some idiot flung “holy” water on them? It’s a slippery slope and we’ve seen some people are quite ready to go right there tomorrow if they could.