>I wonder what would happen if the Darwinists stopped assuming that "the
>public is thick" and instead gave them "the information" (ie. the
>philosophical assumptions of the theory, and evidentiary problems with it)
>so the public "can make an informed choice"?
Personally I think the public would take a keener interest in evolution
if the anomalies were not swept under the rug, and it was made clear
that there are wonderful mysteries to be puzzled out. But so many
teachers, fearful of creationism, put forth the view that everything is
under control except the details, and that competent people have this
mop-up work in hand. They make it seem that evolutionary biology is
a dead field, no place for an ambitious scientist.
I would not attribute the sleaziness of popular science to atheism, as
apparently Stephen would. Shallow sensationalism is the order of the day,
not only for advertising, but even for getting grants. The life-on-Mars
rocks episode was a disgrace for the US Space Administration as it
tried to hustle funding for its programs.
It comes down to critical thinking, and here the absence of philosophy
in the education of scientists surely is a factor, not the absence of religion.
For millenia classical philosophy was synonymous with higher education;
and it was ever suspect for the religionists.
--Cliff Lundberg ~ San Francisco ~ cliff@noe.com