Religion seeks the metaphysical truth to existence, and science explains the physical truth. The former is predicated on accepting the unprovable, and hence science is not its opposite. That’s the part I don’t get: the need to set up science as a contrapositive model. It’s like saying you shouldn’t want to see the Batman movie because the jetstream is dipping south and dragging cold moist Canadian air over the planes. Huh? I want to see Batman. But rain will be falling over most of the Dakotas. Why does that matter? It’s the Batman movie. The rain will be too late for the small grains, but may prepare the soil for next year. I think we’re talking about two different things.
I’ve never understood it, either. Of course, these are the same people who idiotically assume that because I’m skeptical about Warmageddon, that I must be a Christian creationist.
This doesn’t surprise me at all. My evolutionary explanation (and I think that whatever explanation there is is evolutionary, not the media, which is just reflecting viewer and reader preferences) is that women compete more on their physical attractiveness to men (men compete on power and wealth), so both men and women are acutely aware of women’s…interesting…body features (which is also why women have less of a problem being physically attracted to other women than men to men).
This is an illustration of a pet peeve, though. I hate misleading scaling of graphs and bar charts. Because they chose to use $900 as a baseline, it makes it appear that the estimates have increased by more than an order of magnitude over two years, when in fact they have only doubled. It seems to me that doubling is bad enough without playing games with graphics.
When I saw this headline, I thought that science had come up with a huge breakthrough, and a great alternative to fly swatters. Needless to say, I was disappointed.