Following the Science piece, there has been a great need for Nisbet and I to expand upon our arguments regarding "framing." Matt did so the other day on NPR, and now we have a joint piece in the latest Washington Post outlook section that goes further. In the Post, we focus on one of the most obvious examples of badly framing the defense of evolution--tying it to criticism of religion. Richard Dawkins is the most prominent example in this regard, and we single him out accordingly. I want to emphasize that I grew up on Dawkins' books; they really helped me figure out who I am. But nevertheless, over the past several years I've grown increasingly convinced that his is emphatically not the way to make many Americans (people very different from me) more accepting of science. I know I'm not the only one who thinks this. In the Post we were also given space to respond to some of our blogspheric critics, especially PZ. Incidentally, I find it hilarious that due to Post style rules, we had to call him "Paul Zachary Myers." Who does that? (Grin.) Anyway, the Post piece is here. Hope you like it.
P.S.: The piece is already getting nastily slammed by Larry Moran. My reaction to this is primarily one of sadness. After all, I'm an outspoken defender of evolution, like Moran is. I'm also not personally religious; neither is he. These two things already give Moran and I a heck of a lot in common, especially when you compare us with most of the rest of the people in the 'verse. Moran's slamming of Nisbet and I kind of reminds me of the battle between the "Judean People's Front" and the "People's Front of Judea" in Monty Python's Life of Brian. And it suggest to me that here in the blogosphere, our little communities have become far, far too fragmented and polarized.
