There was quite a bit of work going on to inform the public about the issue, and it was arguably bi-partisan. John McCain even credits Nancy Reagan for changing his mind on the subject during the presidential campaign, thus ensuring that no matter which strong leader got elected, the ban would likely be overturned.

I was thinking more in terms such as the long arm of history bends towards justice.

Why do you think these won’t be testable and unphysical in the future? Isn’t it almost as much hubris to assume that something will always be beyond testing and physical existence, especially considering the fact that things that were previously thought to be untestable and unphysical (jealousy, love and altruism for instance) are now thought to be based in the physical universe.

But now let me ask the most important question; why is something less valuable or noble just because it has a physical and testable basis? I get the feeling that those people who hold non-scientific things high up believe that finding out scientific explanations for them somehow diminishes their value. Would I be disappointed and hurt if science discover a basis for love? No! In fact the value of love would be enhanced even more for me, knowing that it has so many different dimensions to it.

Some people go to astounding lengths to misunderstand and disbelieve things…. turning “question everything you read in the media and don’t trust your government” into “everything anyone in a position of power or authority tells you is a lie and a part of the government conspiracy to control your life”

And yet didn’t opinion polls reflect a majority national public acceptable for stem cell research? This brings up a good point though; strong leadership, in my opinion, drives science policy more effectively than public perception. With a majority of Republicans in the legislature and a powerful Bush White House the leadership to drive policy was certainly there.

Which is why it’s more purposeful to discuss ideas not people with their multitudes. Why not save the unsubstantiated rumors for the gossip column.

For the New Atheists, though, there are *only* “physical and testable events”, and anything else is “pure twaddle”, insufficient loyalty to progress via the scientific method, etc., etc. I found an interesting comment the other day by someone who ventured into the Scienceblogs echo chamber summed it up:

The fact remains that anybody with a reasonable knowledge of intellectual and social history is bound to find the polemics of the new atheists rather naive. For most of the last couple of thousand years, for example, it really was the case that the central meaning of faith in Christianity was faithfulness or trust rather than belief in the truthfulness of propositions…. They are like the characters Abbot’s flatland who simply do not recognize that human experience has other dimensions than scientific knowledge and that acknowledging those dimensions doesn’t amount to embracing some sort of conventional spiritualism or obscurantism. Mysticism is not required to develop a little depth of field in one’s vision.