Reply to comment

In my lifetime, the divide between those who are and those who are not comfortable with science seems to have been exacerbated with the pro abortion movement as I remember it developing as a young adult in the 60’s. The debate about abortion generated strongly held opinions that reflected religious and political belief systems countered by a new emerging freedom for woman as a result of the development of reliable contraception and the observations concerning health and safety needs of women seeking illegal abortions where there were no other options. This long lived debate about abortion seemed to be blended in with the emergence of a vocal political and religious right. Science education got caught up in this debate and became a political football.  For example, depending on the locale in the country, school systems were more or less restricted in their teaching of scientifically accepted evidence of evolution.

In Paul’s schematic of science, there exists the “crack,” that place where a wobble resulting from the diversity of background, culture, and personal creativity leads to the enormous range of solutions. The solutions depend on the constructs in which we develop them. Perhaps it is only through inquiry and inclusive conversation that we can minimize the effects of competing political, religious, and even economic influence on how science is taught.