[dwc]

I'm not sure where you got that idea[1]. There was a time several decades ago when the Christian proletariat majority widely supported science, read popular periodicals about science, and aspired to educate their children in science and engineering. There was also a time when conservatives were far more pro-science than liberals. This is why it's important to know some of the history here. Today's anti-science sentiment is surely rooted in right wing Christian factions, and that needs to be fought. But there's absolutely no reason to think that conservative Christians can't endorse and value science, since they have in the past.

The acknowledgement of past conservative/religious alignment with science comes from Jacoby. Decrying the current state is not the same as a summary dismissal.

Mooney and Kirschenbaum are what the "New Atheists" call accommodationists. Atheists themselves, they believe in embracing and working with religious people to find common ground. They're looking to bond with the "sane" religious moderate majority and fight the Luddite, anti-science extremists.

EDITED to add:

1. Ok, you got that idea from comments, obviously. Beware comments on such things. They probably say more about the commenter than about the book.

[bugsy]

"Where I got the idea" is the synopses and comments of the two books as I said. Your comment seems to confirm that you agree that religion is to blame for science illiteracy.

Perhaps some people will be interested in a study with empirical data regarding the alleged american adult science illiteracy: http://mailer.fsu.edu/~slosh//PCST90578.pdf

[dwc]

I believe my comment took account of the role that some extreme religious viewpoints play, while stating that the moderate majority is capable of accepting science.

It seems no matter what I write you are blaming me for having an extreme stance. I do not. There is no reason for me to give all religion viewpoints a pass. I will not. There's no reason to take criticism of any religious sect as a criticism of all religion. That's not the argument I'm making, nor am I implying it.

[bugsy]

I don't know what your stance is and I don't know the book's stance is.

All I know is what the synopsis and the comments state its primary arguments are - that religion is the cause of trouble with scientific literacy of the US public. Beyond that I have made no comments, but I see a lot of downvoting and feather ruffling in response to simple statement of facts. I did show with a link that the premise of the argument, that there is trouble with scientific literacy in the US, is questionable.

I responded to the question "where did you get that idea" and was downvoted when I answered the question. I find that interesting.

[Locke1689]

You were downvoted because your response so completely misinterpreted the parent's comment that the most generous interpretation was that you didn't read it carefully. While rational argument is good, one-way arguments are bad.

[dwc]

Just FYI, I didn't downvote you.