A Welsh theologian laments the lack of rational discourse in today's society.

Was it Hume who said something to the order that one can't deduce the values from facts.

Ironically, the Welsh theologian reveals the source of the irrationalism when he cites Bush's mispronunciation of "nuclear" as evidence that the world is growing more irrational.

The source is the self-satisfied willful ignorance of modern academia. Unless the minister is referring to some new school of linguistic science which have proven that regional accents are somehow tied to logic and rational behavior?

The reputation of Science has suffered most from it's politicalization. Carl Sagan, the closest thing to a secular saint, wrote books on how science luminates the demon haunted world and then pushed BS nuclear winter theories he knew were junk. He was assisted in this fraud by editors of prestigious science periodicals of supposedly high integrity. This process continues to this day.

So now folks disparage and ignor a lot of "Science". Well duh.

The Welsh theologian said, "The Americans have elected a president who can't even say the word 'nuclear'."

Actually, this has happened more than once. Carter, a former nuclear sub technician, said it like that, and I think Clinton did, too.

I remember hearing Carter say "nulear" - yes, without the letter "c."

George Bush believes in teaching Intelligent Design.

The GOP embraced creationism through much of the
South and mid-west.

Simberg sees no conflict between Creationism and
enlightenment.

Simberg sees no conflict between Creationism and
enlightenment.

Of course I do, you moron. It's just a shame that you don't see the conflict between your odious trolling and reality.

Scientists aren't somehow immune to human nature. They have their biases, their ambitions, their blind spots. I think it's a bad idea to claim that there is "true science" which some small cadre of people really do, while others are frauds. Probably all those practicing science have some degree of objective neutrality in many things, mixed with some degree of nonobjective bias.

I think what makes science really work is (1) the fact that we at least attempt to be objective and understand what is really going on (and sometimes succeeed), (2) we are willing to doubt received wisdom, and (3) there is a general societal acceptance that this whole process is bascially a good thing. Thus we have at least the chance to keep moving forward--and sometimes we do--whereas with no attempt at objectivity, no skepticism, and no societal acceptance we have statis, at least as far as science is concerned.