Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
What is the science-religion conflict about? What is the science-religion conflict about?

09-01-2013 , 08:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
But then you're going all-or-nothing, and that's clearly not correct. Think of "Mozart" as "evolution."
The OP isn't about evolution though. It's about science as a whole.
What is the science-religion conflict about? Quote
09-01-2013 , 08:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fretelöo
Well, for one, I'm not one of "you guys". I've stumbled into this discussion more or less by accident, first by trying to clarify to summerset the example Aaron gave, then just focussing on a remark by Husker that seems somewhat distant to the subject matter. Overall, this entire discussion is fairly alien to me. For all intents and purposes, there is no science-religion conflict in Germany.***
Of course I realise that you and Aaron and playing devil's advocate but if you are going to do so then I will treat those views as your own for the sake of readability (i.e. not "the view that you, Aaron, are presenting in place of a different person who does hold that view that.. etc")

Quote:

For two, I feel you're shifting goalposts when you phrase it like "If you want to claim that the assumptions/conclusions of science are wrong...", "making mistakes" "you have the antidote" and similar. At the very least it's unnecessarily polarizing - I doubt anyone in his right mind would claim that the scientific conclusions that science draws are wrong or even incomplete/misguided.
The subject is precisely about those who reject science (as a whole) or science (as presented by scientists) and if/how those groups differ.

Quote:

If I understand the discussion correctly, what's under debate is whether the metaphysical claims/assumptions implicit in "the science" are complete/appropriate (not even wrong). In that regard, your example fails as here, dualists (ultimately) reject the premises of materialists and don't just consider them incomplete.
Eh? If the dualists reject the premises of materialism is it entirely fair to ask how their premises improve the science of mind. I don't think you are following these arguments at all well.

Second, the debate is not just about the metaphysical claims. The ball argument Aaron presented and to which you've nodded along, for example, Aaron claims gives us reason to be skeptical even of scientific claims as uncontroversial and simple as the noble gas laws (e.g. "if a container of gas is reduced in volume the pressure will increase"). Do you agree with Aaron that we have good reason to be skeptical of such a claim, because of the metaphysical assumption of materialism?

Quote:
Third, even disregarding this, the request to "back this up", when it comes to criticizing those assumptions doesn't mean "you'll have to provide an alternative approach that's equally potent" or "you'll have to be an expert in the field" or w/e. Just as a music critic doesn't have to be a composer for his critique to be potentially correct, a critique of the metaphysical assumptions of science does not rely on me being a scientist.
Nonsense. If you (and by "you" I mean "whoever actually holds the position you are arguing for ) want to argue that the metaphysical assumptions of science make science distrustworthy (and that is what the thread is about) then you have to, oh I don't know, back up your assertions? Just saying "they are wrong" is useless. How are they wrong? What are the consequences? How would different assumptions improve the science?

Likewise if I want to say "the metaphysical assumptions of contemporary OT scholars make their exegesis distrustworthy/false/etc" then you are going to want me to explain myself a little. No?

Otherwise all this boils down to is "atheism is true", "no it's not" and we can do away with the chat about science.

Quote:

Getting worked up about it and viewing it as an "attack on science" (personally, I find the language you also used earlier ["clearly attacking; attacking legitimacy -- wtf!?] in this regard somewhat weird) and denigrading such criticism as "impotent and petulant foot-stamping", you're simultaneously missing the point and somewhat disqualifying yourself.
I'm going to put this down to translation, but it is perfectly standard to use the word "attack" in this context. "I attack premise 2 of the argument", "After I finish this essay I'm going to attack the housework" etc.

As for the rest, all "you" have to do to make it sound less impotent and petulant is give a good reason why we should believe that metaphysical assumption X, Y, Z makes science false or untrustworthy, or whatever it is that is being claimed. Or even a reason why the metaphysical assumption is false. Something!

Last edited by zumby; 09-01-2013 at 08:58 AM.
What is the science-religion conflict about? Quote
09-01-2013 , 09:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fretelöo
Still, the analogy was close enough to ascertain that your post had more of a rhetorical point than an actual argument. Which is fair enough, I guess.
Not really. But Zumby's covered it in his post above.
What is the science-religion conflict about? Quote
09-01-2013 , 09:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zumby
The subject is precisely about those who reject science (as a whole) or science (as presented by scientists) and if/how those groups differ.
Ok, if so, then I have nothing to add. Just goes to show that one shouldn't just jump into discussions...

Quote:
I don't think you are following these arguments at all well.
See above.

Quote:
Likewise if I want to say "the metaphysical assumptions of contemporary OT scholars make their exegesis distrustworthy/false/etc" then you are going to want me to explain myself a little. No?
Sure. My point was that this explaining generally won't have (and doesn't need to have) much actual exegesis in them. In fact, such accusations are regularly levelled - just think of adherents of a literal interpretation who attack "my" exegesis by questioning its methodological foundation - and it would be entirely absurd of me to counter with "What exceptional Genesis commentaries have you guys produced? What theological advances stem from your approach?" Or similar. Either their criticism of my method is valid, or not. Whether their own approach is better, is entirely besides the point.

Quote:
I'm going to put this down to translation, but it is perfectly standard to use the word "attack" in this context. "I attack premise 2 of the argument", "After I finish this essay I'm going to attack the housework" etc.
If so, then ok. I just find it strange that, for example, your 2nd reply to Aaron contains labellings such as "poor" or "sub-booshian" (that is actually insulting) etc. Perhaps there's history there, but at least in this thread it doesn't seem that there'd been enough history to merit such. Again - seems unnecessarily polarizing.

Quote:
As for the rest, all "you" have to do to make it sound less impotent and petulant is give a good reason why we should believe that metaphysical assumption X, Y, Z makes science false or untrustworthy, or whatever it is that is being claimed. Or even a reason why the metaphysical assumption is false. Something!
Hmhm!?

As for the underlined, obv. there are none. If that's what's being discussed, then I'm out (and probably shouldn't have entered).
What is the science-religion conflict about? Quote
09-01-2013 , 11:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zumby
That's not very convincing. You've asserted that the claim that mutations are random is an unfounded assumption. I've shown that it is an experimentally-confirmed conclusion. Pointing out that scientists have a specific definition of "random" in mind doesn't help your case. Your assertion is false, in light of how scientists use the term.
The conflation of terms is relevant. I'm saying that the metaphysical assumptions that are communicated is different than what meaning is meant to be applied. Furthermore, the links suggests that interpretation is still open (probably similar to how the Libet experiments are open to interpretation). So it's still not a "conclusion" in the strong sense.

Quote:
Back to well named and dereds point; to accept your claim is a de facto rejection that we have reason to believe scientific claims.
Let's say that we're talking about gravity. One side says "God is causing the object to fall according to the square law (s = gt^2)" and the other side says "A gravitational field is causing the object to fall according to the square law." What exactly do you mean to "accept my claim"?

Quote:
It is still changing the scope of Sommerset's comment. If a non-physical source interacts with the physical world then we could conclude that a non-physical force exists by examining the phenomena.
No, it can't. After having observed the event, there is no way to measure anything to confirm any particular conclusion. You could not scientifically rule out all possibilities of it being a hoax.

Quote:
But if it doesn't interact with the physical world then it might as well not exist (in the same way that existing non-interacting naturalistic forces "might as well not exist".)

Who talked about "the intents and purposes of science"? This is sub-Booshian at best. "all intents and purposes" is an idiom that makes Sommersets claim equivalent to "if something has no impact it might as well not exist".
I'm lumping these together because they can be addressed in the same way. You're using "science" as the tool for determining existence. In the example, we would not be able to detect God. The claim the would be that for all intents and purposes, God does not exist. Except that God does exist and God did interact with the universe. Science does not speak about this type of event. If you only take existence by what can be measured by science, you miss out on some things.

Quote:
If it the concept to which "intention" refers is not well-defined enough to study then it isn't well-defined enough to conclude science can't study when properly defined. And this is another Boosh-esque changing of your argument. You've got from "science can never detect intention" to "er, well we don't really know what intention means". Poor.
The concept of "intention" *IS* well-defined enough to be understood, just like "design." But it's not well-defined enough in the sense of any attempt to measure it in some non-ambiguous way. Understanding human intention is an interpretative act. A person can take an action that can be interpreted in multiple ways. Which one is the "right" interpretation? Maybe it's a combination of all of them, maybe it's something else entirely. The strongest results you might get would be something on a social science level, but the social science level won't "detect" intention, but could (at best) predict intentions. And that's not the same thing.

Quote:
Same evasion again. You've been presenting arguments that the scientific method can't even make true statements about the noble gas laws. This is directly equivalent to not "trusting math" in the analogy.
Be specific. What about what I've said implies that the scientific method cannot make true statements about the noble ideal gas laws. State the law and state the part of the law that is being rejected.
What is the science-religion conflict about? Quote
09-01-2013 , 11:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husker
The OP isn't about evolution though. It's about science as a whole.
No, it's not.

OrP's OP is about how religious adherents embrace science in general, with the exception of certain things that have social/moral implications.
What is the science-religion conflict about? Quote
09-01-2013 , 11:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husker
Not really. But Zumby's covered it in his post above.
Except that his point regarding this specific issue - as far as I can see - fails.
What is the science-religion conflict about? Quote
09-01-2013 , 12:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
No, it's not.

OrP's OP is about how religious adherents embrace science in general, with the exception of certain things that have social/moral implications.
Yes, science as a whole. You were the one narrowing it down to evolution to make Fret's (poor) analogy try to fit.
What is the science-religion conflict about? Quote
09-01-2013 , 12:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fretelöo
Except that his point regarding this specific issue - as far as I can see - fails.
We'll have to disagree on that one. If those doing the criticising have nothing to offer then they're not worth taking seriously. As I sit here at home on my laptop, communicating over the internet and watching the football on satellite tv I'm seeing real working examples of scientific endeavour.
What is the science-religion conflict about? Quote
09-01-2013 , 01:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky
Not fair. That's sort of double counting. Less educated people are less likely to understand science regardless of their religion. But if a religious group is less likely to be educated you can't discounttheir religion as being a cause of the ignorance.
Fair point. However, even if religion was a cause of scientific ignorance in this way, the study would still be enough to show that religion's opposition isn't to science in particular, but to education in general.
What is the science-religion conflict about? Quote
09-01-2013 , 01:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husker
As I sit here at home on my laptop, communicating over the internet and watching the football on satellite tv I'm seeing real working examples of scientific endeavour.
Yeah, that was the other point I forgot to mention that was kind of lol about your original post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husker
It's not similar. For those who criticise scientists for a supposed materialistic view and yet every day use the achievements of those scientists, what have they given us? If they believe scientists are failing to take into account other things (supernatural or whatever), then what have they achieved using that outlook that scientists have missed?
You do realize that this is - at best - a silly rhetorical trick, right?

The first immortal cell line stems from Henrietta Lacks and was obtained under highly questionable conditions. Just very recently has her family gained back some say in how her cells are used.

That ethical criticism is in no way invalidated if it was levelled by an AIDS patient, who, very likely, has directly or indirectly profited from research done on her cell line. Similarly, criticizing methodological naturalism as wrong/incomplete/lacking/w_e does not commit me to living in a cave lest I become "argumentatively incoherent" or w/e.

I thought that was kind of obvious, but since it's the 2nd time you go there, I guess it bears mentioning.

Last edited by fretelöo; 09-01-2013 at 01:55 PM.
What is the science-religion conflict about? Quote
09-01-2013 , 01:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by duffee
I ran the above through CCTP (Conservative Christian Translation Program):
Thus, while it might be that Christians who have a greater distrust of non-religious people are primarily concerned with non-religious people who intervene in moral questions, this doesn't seem to be the case with non-religious people.
In other words, I think we’d end up with a similar spread if we were to ask the non-religious if they want Conservative Christian scientists more involved in the debate. The non-religious would likely say “no” and Conservative Christians “yes.” It’s politics: no group wants to grant more political influence to another group if they perceive that group as having different and/or opposed interests or agendas from their own.
You are ignoring the evidence. Some non-religious people do say that scientists shouldn't be involved in the stem-cell debate. If you were right that people's views about scientists' involvement in moral debates are just tracking whether they think these scientists agree with them or are part of their "group" (as measured by their confidence in scientists), then we would expect these non-religious people to have less confidence in scientists than the non-religious people who think scientists should intervene in these debates. However, this isn't the case--the non-religious people who think scientists should not intervene in the stem-cell debate have fairly close to the same level of confidence in scientists as the non-religious people who think they should intervene.
What is the science-religion conflict about? Quote
09-01-2013 , 02:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by well named
I think it's true that a lot of the conflict between "science" and "religion" amounts to a conflicting world view

at the same time, it's simply wrong to claim that evolution isn't science, and unless they can demonstrate that the science of evolution is wrong, it's fairly silly to object to it on the basis that they can't trust materialists while insisting they do trust the scientific method.
Evans does identify what he calls a "narrow epistemological conflict" for conservative Protestants. He says that under this model the scientific method is thought to give us true claims about the world, but that the religious method will also do so. Thus, these methods shouldn't give us contradictory claims. However, when they do, such as with evolution, the religious method takes precedence.

Thus, under this hypothesis conservative Christians will accept the methods and conclusions of science just as readily as the non-religious except when there is an explicit disagreement with their religious beliefs. They also believe that while these are two different methods of gaining knowledge about the world, they are supplementary rather than contradictory methods.

You can also see here pretty easily what the argument is for why evolution is not proven science.

1) Biblically proven theories are true.
2) Special creation is a Biblically proven theory.
3) Thus, special creation is true.
4) Scientifically proven theories are true.
5) Evolution conflicts with special creation.
6) Thus, evolution is not a scientifically proven theory.

Quote:
You could have an argument about what kinds of moral conclusions follow from evolution, if any, or about whether science curriculum is reaching conclusions that follow more from materialism as a world view than from actual science, but I don't think you can't really claim you trust science but reject evolution as unscientific, and in practice it seems clear that protestations aside, the attitude that creationists have towards the subject is also to be suspicious of the scientific method, not just materialism or materialists.
Some ID proponents are quite explicit about this. They claim that methodological naturalism has been accepted as part of the scientific method by modern scientists, but that it shouldn't be.
What is the science-religion conflict about? Quote
09-01-2013 , 03:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fretelöo
Except that his point regarding this specific issue - as far as I can see - fails.
I'm in the middle of a Breaking Bad catchup marathon (no spoilers please) so the other points will have to wait till tomorrow but this is just not true. I don't even see how the point can "fail".. it's not that Husker are making some sort of deductive argument (that could fail) where a criticism is necessarily false because the criticiser doesn't meet criteria x,y,z.

It's simply the observation that if one wants to criticise the assumptions of a wildly successful theory then one needs to demonstrate some sort of reason to think one's criticism is likely to be true. Think of it like a 2NL donk asserting that Phil Ivey is a bad poker player because "he makes false assumptions" about his opponents. At the very least you are going to want him to point to specific errors in Ivey's play. That's the sort of bar we are setting; point to the specific errors, give examples of additional data explained, etc etc. Now imagine the 2NL donk says "hey, I don't need to be able to compose symphonies to criticise Mozart". Obviously you are just going to ignore him and move on. Husker and I are asking for a reason not to do the same.
What is the science-religion conflict about? Quote
09-01-2013 , 03:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fretelöo
Yeah, that was the other point I forgot to mention that was kind of lol about your original post:


You do realize that this is - at best - a silly rhetorical trick, right?

The first immortal cell line stems from Henrietta Lacks and was obtained under highly questionable conditions. Just very recently has her family gained back some say in how her cells are used.

That ethical criticism is in no way invalidated if it was levelled by an AIDS patient, who, very likely, has directly or indirectly profited from research done on her cell line. Similarly, criticizing methodological naturalism as wrong/incomplete/lacking/w_e does not commit me to living in a cave lest I become "argumentatively incoherent" or w/e.

I thought that was kind of obvious, but since it's the 2nd time you go there, I guess it bears mentioning.
And very quickly, yes an ethical criticism is absolutely fine in principle. But what has been discussed here is epistemological criticism. It would help make things clearer if you stuck to the sort of examples discussed e.g. "can science legitimately claim that genetic mutations are random?" and "can science legitimately claim that mental events are fully caused by physical events?" etc.

Or to develop the Phil Ivey analogy, if the criticism was ethical "Phil Ivey is morally wrong to take fishes money" it would be a different story compared to the epistemological "Phil Ivey makes bad poker assumptions" criticism.

Last edited by zumby; 09-01-2013 at 03:27 PM.
What is the science-religion conflict about? Quote
09-01-2013 , 03:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fretelöo
Yeah, that was the other point I forgot to mention that was kind of lol about your original post:


You do realize that this is - at best - a silly rhetorical trick, right?

The first immortal cell line stems from Henrietta Lacks and was obtained under highly questionable conditions. Just very recently has her family gained back some say in how her cells are used.

That ethical criticism is in no way invalidated if it was levelled by an AIDS patient, who, very likely, has directly or indirectly profited from research done on her cell line. Similarly, criticizing methodological naturalism as wrong/incomplete/lacking/w_e does not commit me to living in a cave lest I become "argumentatively incoherent" or w/e.

I thought that was kind of obvious, but since it's the 2nd time you go there, I guess it bears mentioning.
I honestly don't know where you're going with all this. If you read the thread, my original post was a response to Aaron's post (No15) where he is discussing the interpretation of the data, NOT morality.

Criticising mehodological naturalism with regards to the scientific method may not commit you to living in a cave but without being able to point to any sort of meanigful alternative, especially given the successes of this method, makes the criticism pretty meaningless.
What is the science-religion conflict about? Quote
09-01-2013 , 03:22 PM
Beaten to it by Zumby . Grinding & posting at the same time is my excuse.

Last edited by Husker; 09-01-2013 at 03:23 PM. Reason: spelling
What is the science-religion conflict about? Quote
09-01-2013 , 03:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zumby
(no spoilers please)
The dog dies.

Quote:
It's simply the observation that if one wants to criticise the assumptions of a wildly successful theory then one needs to demonstrate some sort of reason to think one's criticism is likely to be true.
Sure. This, however, does not mean that the reasons have to be of the same kind as the reasons we use for considering the criticized theory to be successful.

Meaning that our reason for considering the scientific approach (or w/e) to be successful is not that we have some great metaphysical revelations as to the validity of methodological naturalism. The reason is simply that it works. It explains stuff. A possible criticism of those metaphysical presuppositions (or w/e) would not need to show how alternative presuppositions lead to time travel and cured cancer.

IoW: When the discussion is about the metaphysical assumptions implied in the scientific process, I'm making a philosophical/theological point. "But it works" is generally not a great counter to that.

Your analogy is actually a very good example:

Quote:
Think of it like a 2NL donk asserting that Phil Ivey is a bad poker player because "he makes false assumptions" about his opponents.
For one (this might go back to me jumping into a discussion I'm unfamiliar with and have not really followed from the beginning), the analogy - for the point I'm arguing - would be a 2NL donk who claims that Durrrr is an incomplete player, because he doesn't have a clue about game theory. (Incidentally, as per a slew of 2p2-threads, a true assessment).

Quote:
At the very least you are going to want him to point to specific errors in Ivey's play.
Nope. What I can legitimately ask him to do is support his claim. If he can point to 2p2-threads, then he's made his point. What you're asking is for him to point to specific errors in Durrrs play - which is misguided, as there might be none***. and Husker is asking him how much money he has won.

Now you could ask me what the equivalent of the 2p2-threads would be in the case of science, and I wouldn't have a good answer as I'm not regularly in the business of arguing the metaphysical validity/completeness of naturalism, but I don't need a good answer. What the example shows is that 2p2-threads is claim-supporting evidence of an entirely different sort of either net line or discernible errors in Durrrs actual play.


***If his opponents aren't unexploitable, he might be correct in never playing GTO. That wouldn't make the 2nl's criticism any less valid, despite the fact that if Durrrr were a more complete player, it would have no discernible effect on his net-line.
What is the science-religion conflict about? Quote
09-01-2013 , 03:58 PM
Aaron, I feel like you are ignoring the obvious here. The primary debate about evolution is not about materialism, but about evolution. It is not just "by far an exception" for religious people to reject evolution. There is a conflict between what real honest-to-god science tells us about the development of species and the views of the 55% of evangelical protestants who believe that living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time. Thus, while we might think that this disagreement is motivated by social or moral reasons, that doesn't make it any less a disagreement with the actual results of science.
What is the science-religion conflict about? Quote
09-01-2013 , 04:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fretelöo
Your analogy is actually a very good example:

For one (this might go back to me jumping into a discussion I'm unfamiliar with and have not really followed from the beginning), the analogy - for the point I'm arguing - would be a 2NL donk who claims that Durrrr is an incomplete player, because he doesn't have a clue about game theory. (Incidentally, as per a slew of 2p2-threads, a true assessment).
This doesn't really work. Durrrr may not be using game theory but we can point to the successes of others who are using it, Sauce for example. So in this case we have an alternative method that is very succesful.
What is the science-religion conflict about? Quote
09-01-2013 , 04:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position
Thus, while we might think that this disagreement is motivated by social or moral reasons, that doesn't make it any less a disagreement with the actual results of science.
Sure. As I've said before, they're just wrong. My disagreement with many others in this thread is that their wrongness about evolution is not about an overall rejection of science.

I will add that the wrongness of the creationists is very similar in nature to gritmonkey's wrongness. The difference is that Gritmonkey's "conclusion" about evolution happens to align with the scientific conclusion. It says nothing about his ability to articulate even a meaningful level of comprehension about what he's actually talking about.
What is the science-religion conflict about? Quote
09-01-2013 , 04:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husker
Yes, science as a whole. You were the one narrowing it down to evolution to make Fret's (poor) analogy try to fit.
Huh? Fret started by talking about Mozart (a specific composer) and symphonies (a broad musical form). I'm talking about evolution (a specific scientific theory) and science (a broad set of theories which conform to a specific methodology).

And it's still not "science as a whole."
What is the science-religion conflict about? Quote
09-01-2013 , 04:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husker
This doesn't really work. Durrrr may not be using game theory but we can point to the successes of others who are using it, Sauce for example. So in this case we have an alternative method that is very succesful.
Do you want to substitute "game theory" with "having a smoothie every day during his morning piss"? Be my guest. It would still be fallacious to ask the donk for specific errors in Durrrs play. The correct approach would be - just as in the example - to ask him for evidence linking smothies and completeness as a poker player*** and evidence that Durrr doesn't have a smoothie.


***with GT, that link was implicitely assumed to be mutually agreed upon.
What is the science-religion conflict about? Quote
09-01-2013 , 04:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fretelöo
Do you want to substitute "game theory" with "having a smoothie every day during his morning piss"? Be my guest. It would still be fallacious to ask the donk for specific errors in Durrrs play. The correct approach would be - just as in the example - to ask him for evidence linking smothies and completeness as a poker player*** and evidence that Durrr doesn't have a smoothie.


***with GT, that link was implicitely assumed to be mutually agreed upon.
No. The donk could point out that GTO play is a succesful alternative to Durrr's style of play, given the results of others who are using this method. Now he may not be qualified to say whether or not it is better but he is at least able to offer up a valid alternative.
What is the science-religion conflict about? Quote
09-01-2013 , 04:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
I will add that the wrongness of the creationists is very similar in nature to gritmonkey's wrongness. The difference is that Gritmonkey's "conclusion" about evolution happens to align with the scientific conclusion. It says nothing about his ability to articulate even a meaningful level of comprehension about what he's actually talking about.
I'm not sure this is correct. The point of saying that there is an epistemological disagreement between those who reject evolution and the canons of science is that it is not enough to show on scientific grounds that evolution is true. You would also have to convince them on theological/epistemological grounds. Are you saying that gritmonkey was not just ignorant, but also had some epistemological viewpoint such that if you showed him on scientific grounds that he was incorrect that he still wouldn't have accepted your claim?

Obviously I don't care about gritmonkey in particular, but I hope this example shows why just pointing out that people are ignorant about evolution in general doesn't doesn't get rid of the conflict.
What is the science-religion conflict about? Quote

      
m