News flash: Apparently, the “enemies of science” know science as well as other people
|October 11, 2011||Posted by News under Culture, Darwinism, News|
In “Science and religion: A false divide” ( Los Angeles Times, October 10, 2011), sociologist John H. Evans advises,
On most issues, there is very little conflict between religion and science.
Thanks for patronizing most North Americans, buddy. Now are we supposed to put out our hats so you can put change into them?
What if we don’t need it? Is there a really polite way of just saying no, refusing the change?
I recently conducted survey research comparing the most conservative of Protestants — those who identify with a conservative Protestant denomination, attend church regularly and take the Bible literally, or about 11% of the population in my analysis — with those who do not participate in any religion. The conservative Protestants are equally likely to understand scientific methods, to know scientific facts and to claim knowledge of science. They are as likely as the nonreligious to have majored in science or to have a scientific occupation. While other studies have shown that the elite scientists who work at the 20 top research universities are less religious than the public, it appears that the vast majority of people with workaday scientific occupations are like their neighbors, religiously speaking.
But we knew this. Normal people do.
The rest is mainly ignorable, but get this: “To move forward, we, as a country, need to lower the political conflict.”
Why? For technical reasons, most UD news staff arrange to be out of town and out of range during US elections. But if there is a big difference between what the elite believe and what the public believes about ultimate issues, and the elite are flexing their muscles against the public, the political conflict cannot be lowered unless the public surrenders. But why should it? Has the right to nominate, or to vote, been abolished yet?
Maybe. Memo never got here.