It has been suggested that the softer the science is, the more extreme is the conflict between science and religion. For political scientists it is life and death, anthropologists go nuts over it, biologists get all worked up and defensive, chemists and engineers hardly have the time, physicists enjoy it, thinking themselves at times on par with the prophets, I’m told, and mathematicians… well they operate on a ‘higher’ level where it doesn’t even enter the picture.
-
Search It!
-
Recent Entries
-
Links
I think this logic also works the other way around. I don’t think physisists get religious people telling them that their theories are wrong. Anthropologists, on the other have to face the insanity of things like ID on a regular basis.
This probably has something to do with the fact that ‘softer’ sciences seem more graspable than harder sciences so every average Joe thinks they have something to contribute.
I can’t really picture your average Joe discussing quantum physics with a physicist and much less bringing up the Bible into it…
Good point, but … what about Galileo? He was a physicist, no? The Church never excommunicated Darwin…
I think it probably goes both ways. I bet if you’re a bible-carrying politician looking for an ID fight, you’re more likely to take on a field like biology (that perhaps you can relate to easier) than one like quantum mechanics. And so it’s possible that the big fight being setup in biology/evolution is more or less arbitrary.
I think it’s time for me to take on some Physics. I just read this talk by Hawking (who is coming to ASU this semester!) and it raises a whole bunch of thrilling questions that the evolution escapade doesn’t even come close to:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php/lectures/publiclectures/91