Though similiar to the "teaching science to non-scientist" thread, I think this warrents a thread of its own.
The issue is this -
Frequently when trying to explain a scientific concept to a fundy, the thread will devolve into a series of nitpicking posts between two or more incredibly well versed science types.
Usually this is on some subtangent of the original thread, and as a result, the fundy who asked the original question is lead down increasingly more complicated threads in which people are arguing about minor points to which he's never been exposed.
My thought is, this HURTS the cause.
Our goal here, as a community, should be to either a) break down the false arguments presented by the anti-science religeous/political movement, or b) introduce those who've completely missed out on their science education to the key building blocks of this theory.
If a child asked about basic addition and subtraction, you wouldn't present them with a 400 page proof. You wouldn't make them sit through an arguement between two mathematicians about calc vs trig and the implications of sine. The child would be completely lost and would come away with the belief that the people talking couldn't agree about math.
How many times have we heard this false statement: "Even scientists can't agree about evolution." because of debate about steady state vs punctuated?
That is the mind set we are dealing with.
The question here:
Should we treat fundamentalists as though they've completely missed out on their education or should we treat them as though they were part way through their masters degree in bio-engineering?
™ Version 4.2