you need to reverse that 180. Here’s what REALLY needs to happen:

the silent majority of religious moderates have to do more unapologetic pushing back against religious extremeists who feel they need to use their religious beliefs to attack science.

there now, that’s better. That, in fact, is exactly what I’ve always admired about Wes. He pulls no punches wrt to what we are basically talking about here, which is stupidity, and fear of being ostracized for being stupid. let’s face facts: creationism isn’t a religion, it’s just institutionalized ignorance.

the extreme atheists are doing a fantastic job shifting the discussion away from the idea that atheism itself is taboo.

the problem hardly lies with them.

The philosophical underpinnings of science are, for the most part, invisible to its practitioners. While being schooled in scientific disciplines, it is relatively uncommon for students to be explicitly exposed to the philosophy of science. The practice of science is mostly conducted by people who have neither a grounding in or an appreciation for epistemology, and who may even find consideration of the topic unworthy of their attention. Even the much vaunted “scientific method” rarely receives a cogent explanation to the student at the secondary school level, and may be entirely absent from the curriculum of graduating college students. A mystery worthy of exploring is how science continues to perpetuate itself without an efficient and explicit pedagogy.

The solution is that many successful scientists learn by example and by doing science. In most cases, explicit lessons in the scientific method become superfluous because the neophyte scientist must undertake research directed by others, whether during their course work in school or in entry-level research positions. The structure of current scientific research holds many parallels to the medieval guild system, with the apprentice (read “undergraduate”, “graduate”, or “intern”), journeyman (read “graduate” or “postdoc”), and master (read “faculty”, “researcher”, or “scientist”) levels. It is uncommon that one may find a master level scientist (one who obtains grants as a principal investigator in his or her own name) who has not completed one or both of the lower levels. The course work of science curricula is, generally speaking, an insufficient basis for the actual practice of science. That comes from getting involved in the practice of science. Actually practicing science is unlikely to enhance the practitioner’s grounding in the philosophy of science.

Still, this persistent and pervasive gap in the knowledge of scientists concerning the philosophical basis of scientific endeavor cannot be viewed with equanimity. A proper understanding of what science is and does should be part of every citizen’s education, especially as our society becomes more and more dependent upon technology. Miscomprehension of what scientists do hampers scientists in the long run, as public funding administration may then evaluate proposals using a skewed or even anti-scientific viewpoint. The objections of the late Senator Proxmire to various funded research studies in basic science demonstrate this point nicely.

Wesley’s seen this before, but for those who missed it, google “AP Biology” and Behe, or “intelligent design”. You’ll see its common to “present both sides” as an exercise in scientific critical thinking, either in class, or as supplemental material. I teach AP Biology, and participate on the College Board’s AP Biology teacher’s email list. Roughly half of the correspondants on the topic insist that their students are smart enough evaluate anti-evolution arguments, and are angered by the suggestion that they’re presenting anti-science propaganda that can’t be completely evaluated by the non-scientist. A portion of the other half proudly proclaim anti-religious views.

The problem is that we STILL teach biology as a bucket of relatively unrelated facts. The years of emphasis on educating teachers to present method and an unstanding of what science is has been translated by colleges of education as a necessity to recreate the science in the classroom in the most dramatic way possible. There is no understanding of the scientific community, how it operates, peer review, and the necessity of referencing recognized authority in established science. The result is the presentation of a bucket of facts each of which has no more legitimacy than any alternative that might be proposed.

Many (most?) teachers, no different than the rest of the public and media, view the “controversy” as the “inevitable” opposition of science and scientists to religion. This misunderstanding is produced by the two extremes using similar tactics. So two things have to happen. Science education needs to include the sociology and philosophy of science, as well as the methods, and the silent majority of scientists and educators have to do more unapologitic pushing back against extreme atheists using science to attack religion.

There wasn’t just a full moon in Florida, was there?

I particularly liked the person who noted that antievolution speakers showed that the current Florida standards had failed.