[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.