ISEN-ASTC-L is a service of the Association of Science-Technology Centers
Incorporated, a worldwide network of science museums and related institutions.
*****************************************************************************

At 13:42 17/05/2005, Jonah Cohen quoted:

>The people of a sovereign state attempt to settle by
>referendum the question of whether man is a product of organic evolution;
>for them to attempt a popular verdict on the Einstein theory would be no
>less absurd."
>
>           -Scientific American, July, 1929

It seems to me that ASTC members will not succeed in calming this damaging 
conflict either by yawning and ignoring it or by cheering for their 
favourite side.

In my contribution on 18th April (Is this can of beans round or square?) I 
suggested that ASTC might consider an official endorsement of Stephen Jay 
Gould's 'NOMA'  (Nonoverlapping Magisteria) principle. 
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html

I received a stream of positive off-list emails, but no discussion followed 
here. Surely it would be helpful to stand up and point out that this is NOT 
about which side is right; but that the conflict itself is illegitimate; 
that neither science nor religion has (by definition) any authority to 
pronounce judgements on the other; that 'evolution' and 'creation' could be 
different ways of describing the same events from different viewpoints; 
that both viewpoints are entirely separate and must be KEPT separate ... 
and that arguing about them is as meaningful as arguing whether a 
three-dimensional bean can is round or rectangular.

In many encounters with militant creationists, I have personally found that 
a suitably packaged, sensitively presented version of Stephen Jay Gould's 
'NOMA'  approach softens hostility from all but the most prejudiced 
hardliners. It works. Religious boundary-crossers making false claims about 
science can't be left unchallenged, but stepping over to portray science as 
the sworn enemy of religion has been entirely unhelpful.

Refusing challenges to public debate with militant creationists seems a 
sensible first move mainly because the context sets science up as the 
opponent of religion, but refusal could be misinterpreted without a clear 
explanation of the reason. NOMA provides that explanation.

Some people with a purely personal anti-religion agenda might not be 
prepared to subscribe to NOMA. Surely 'winning' is less important than 
addressing this widespread public hostility towards science? Personal 
agendas aren't part of the definition of 'science', are they?


[log in to unmask] * http://www.interactives.co.uk
*
Give people facts and you feed their minds for an hour.
Awaken curiosity and they feed their own minds for a lifetime.
*
Ian Russell  

***********************************************************************
More information about the Informal Science Education Network and the
Association of Science-Technology Centers may be found at http://www.astc.org.
To remove your e-mail address from the ISEN-ASTC-L list, send the
message  SIGNOFF ISEN-ASTC-L in the BODY of a message to
[log in to unmask]