Friday, December 30, 2005
Political theology
The Republican Party in my locality has now decided to endorse a particular theological doctrine, that of intelligent design. It is very strange that an ostensibly secular organization should take on a particular theological position. Of course, they probably think they’ve instead taken a position in biology, but that’s hardly less strange.
What nuttiness next? An official Republican position on infant baptism? Or maybe on superstring theory?
What nuttiness next? An official Republican position on infant baptism? Or maybe on superstring theory?
Comments:
<< Home
Hi, I found your blog from a comment on a PR blog, which I turn found via Media Bistro. Anyway, I love Bozeman and envy you living there. But to the point. You may be interested in checking out my analysis of press coverage of intelligent design at my blog, Green Goddess Gazette, Dec. 21 entry. Comments, for good or for ill, most welcome...this issue is too important to let fade just because ID got kicked out of Dover, PA.
Thanks for the link to your article. It was worth reading, and readers of my blog ought to take a look at it.
Green Goddess Gazette
In general, coverage of science in the U.S. press is pretty bad -- it's treated either as policy debate (as you document in the case of evolution) or as semi-amusing human interest sidebars if there's no controversy.
Economics coverage is as bad, although it gets more serious treatment -- but usually in the context of policy debate, or else forecasts (the weakest part of econ).
On his blog, Tom Palmer posted a photo of himself drawing a supply and demand diagram to explain price controls for a Kurdish journalist. She told him they'd print it in their paper. It's unconceivable that actual scientific arguments -- from econ or otherwise -- would appear in an American news medium. We're too geared to entertainment, sound bites, and ""information," as opposed to learning and understanding.
Post a Comment
Green Goddess Gazette
In general, coverage of science in the U.S. press is pretty bad -- it's treated either as policy debate (as you document in the case of evolution) or as semi-amusing human interest sidebars if there's no controversy.
Economics coverage is as bad, although it gets more serious treatment -- but usually in the context of policy debate, or else forecasts (the weakest part of econ).
On his blog, Tom Palmer posted a photo of himself drawing a supply and demand diagram to explain price controls for a Kurdish journalist. She told him they'd print it in their paper. It's unconceivable that actual scientific arguments -- from econ or otherwise -- would appear in an American news medium. We're too geared to entertainment, sound bites, and ""information," as opposed to learning and understanding.
<< Home
