It's been pointed out here already, but I think what a lot of people get frustrated with is when the vehemence with which a certain segment of the scientific community argue against their opposition. The language adopted by both sides becomes interchangeable. "This is a fact that cannot be questioned and everyone who disagrees with me is stupid, archaic, and needs to be stopped."
It becomes a discussion of lowest-common-denominators.
My problem with Dawkins and that whole movement is that they are politicizing a scientific discussion of religion via the mainstream media. This is a dangerous equation.
It doesn't matter what belief or cause is being argued, when people start framing their discussions as doctrine, I get nervous. And here I am not just talking about evolutionists. You can apply the same thing to religion, politics, history, sociology, cultural theory... whatever.
Thor brought up Sagan and I'd just like to point out, perhaps one of the reasons a man such as he was so universally respected was precisely because he transcended the kind of juvenile name-calling that we are so often subjected to in contemporary debates around these subjects. Sagan believed in and was immensely successful in spreading positive messages about science and thought, rather than rushing to join the queue of negativity and one-upsmanship. Because what Sagan understood so well is that to truly affect change in a lasting, meaningful way, the key is to give people information in a positive context, which can then help them to think and come to conclusions independantly; trying to impose your will upon people is counter-productive.
Beacuse then, we just all end up shouting at one another.
|