> We also are divided roughly between TE and PC, plus within those broad
> classifications we are caught up in various whirlpools of thought. IF
> we presented a united front we could perhaps make a major impact. One
> example of our mixed message was _Pandas and People_, an abortive attempt
> to publish something responsible. But too many fingers got into the pot.
> Sacred cows were trotted across the pages. Would the TV extravaganza have
> been any different? Better it die than be born a two-headed monster.
Often, you can make a stronger impact by carefully presenting a
*spectrum* of views, discussing points of agreement and disagreement.
Don't give people one mixed message; give them a range of credible
options.
I've seen this done in electronic discussions, conversations with
individuals, discussion groups of Christian academicians, Sunday school
classes with many non-scientists, an article for a "secular" magazine,
and a letter to a "secular" science education organization. If you
tailor it to the audience, it seems to work.
Loren Haarsma