Here it goes…
1. David Bruggeman and W.H. Dean smartly pile some more on Mooney’s latest. But…
2. …Chris continues to go another round, this time with Kenneth Green.
3. A Rice University study shockingly concludes that for the most part, science and religion aren’t in conflict.
4. Susan Fitzpatrick disagrees with Michio Kako on sacred cows in science (the second link behind a paywall).
5. Roger on the politicization of science by scientists.
4.
The Rice University study (#3) looks like a good contribution to the dialogue. Integrated with the Pew Research Center’s 2006 study it looks like science and religion aren’t perceived to be in conflict *for scientists*, but they are perceived to be in conflict *for the American public* (at least when it comes to evolutionary science, anyway). I like that Ecklund’s been able to focus on what scientists actually think about these issues because Pew, Gallup, et al. usually focus on Americans broadly. She published these results in the form of a popular-level book last year (“Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think”).
Thanks for the comment Omair. I agree that the Rice study is a good contribution. I had heard of the book, but I haven’t read it yet.