Friday, July 10, 2009
I recommend something different. Our next generation of great science communicators should be flesh-and-blood people with personalities, every one different and every one with different priorities, all singing out enthusiastically for everything from astronomy to zoology, and they should sometimes be angry and sometimes sorrowful and sometimes deliriously excited. They shouldn't hesitate to say what they think, even if it might make Joe the Plumber surly. If you want to improve American science and the perception of science by the public, teach science first and foremost, because what you'll find is that your discipline is then populated with people who are there because they love the ideas. And, by the way, let them know every step of the way that science is also a performing art, and that they have an obligation as a public intellectual to take their hard-earned learning and share it with the world.
Labels: Accommodationism Incompatiblism
On the other hand, there are those who want PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins to put a lid on it for the sake of theistic evolution.
Which side are you on?
I think you agree with PZ but your posting doesn't make that clear.
Do the incompatibilists have to shut up ... no. I think they're wrong about Miller's and other TEer's theologies being incompatible with science (when they aren't denying they said that) and it would be nice if they took some consideration of the fact that the DI thinks they are the best thing for ID's cause, and try to deny Casey Luskin, et al, at least some of their talking points, but that's up to them.
I can't believe you actually said that!
Shame on you.
No, I didn't. I said that they might consider how to go about what they want to say as to avoid giving ammunition to creationists if they can. (You know, the way you have said that scientists who write statements published by, say, the NAS should consider not taking certain positions on the compatibility of religion and science so as not to misrepresent science or scientists.)
Colin Patterson regretted the way he went about his famous AMNH speech without regretting what he intended to say. Suggesting that people consider how their words may be used/abused is quite different than telling them to be quiet ... especially since I specifically said they had no duty to do so.
Hmmm ... that's a nifty way of avoiding responsibility.
Are you a lawyer?