If you haven't seen this clip yet, above is a preview of the central message on how "Big Science" views religion in the documentary Expelled. There's little work needed on the part of the producers, since the message is spelled out via the interviews provided by PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins.
Notice the very clear translation for audiences as to what supposedly establishment science believes:
A) Learning about science makes you an atheist, it "kills off" religious faith.
B) If we boost science literacy in society, it will lead to erosion of religion, as religion fades away, we will get more and more science, and less and less religion.
C) Religion is a fairy tale, similar to hobgoblins, a fantasy, and even evil.
The simplistic and unscientific claim that more knowledge leads to less religion might be the particular delusion of Dawkins, Myers, and many others, but it is by no means the official position of science, though they often implicitly claim to speak for science. Nor does it stand up to mounds of empirical evidence about the complex relationship between science literacy and public perceptions.
Unfortunately, you couldn't focus group a better message for the pro-creationist crowd. And this message is already reaching well beyond the theaters, on display most recently with the PZ Myers Affair chronicled at the NY Times.
As long as Dawkins and PZ continue to be the representative voices from the pro-science side in this debate, it is really bad for those of us who care about promoting public trust in science and science education. Dawkins and PZ need to lay low as Expelled hits theaters. Let others play the role of communicator, most importantly the National Center for Science Education, AAAS, the National Academies or scientists such as Francis Ayala or Ken Miller. When called up by reporters or asked to comment, Dawkins and PZ should refer journalists to these organizations and individuals.
If Dawkins and PZ really care about countering the message of The Expelled camp, they need to play the role of Samantha Power, Geraldine Ferraro and so many other political operatives who through misstatements and polarizing rhetoric have ended up being liabilities to the causes and campaigns that they support: Lay low and let others do the talking.
So Richard and PZ, when it comes to Expelled, it's time to let other people be the messengers for science. This is not about censoring your ideas and positions, but rather being smart, strategic, tactical, and ultimately effective in promoting science rather than your own personal ideology, books, or blog. I will have more to say on Expelled strategy in a talk I am giving Thursday night at UWisc-Eau Claire and then next week Monday in a lunch time talk given with Chris Mooney at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School.
Dawkins and Myers: It's Time to Let Others Be the Spokespeople for Science
Comments
Why does Dawkins even hold the chair of the "Public understanding of science" at Oxford anyway?
Posted by: Naadir Jeewa | March 23, 2008 12:22 PM
So, because a propaganda hit-piece pastes together an interview in such a way to put Dawkins and Myers in a (relatively) bad light, and put them before someone who says, possibly in jest, that religion is 'evil', then they should both shut up and sit down?
Nonsense. The framing that needs to occur is "Creationists lie, and lie regularly." Darwin's Rottweiler and Darwin's Squid manage to make Stein and Mathis look like the liars and hypocrites they are.
Posted by: chancelikely | March 23, 2008 1:03 PM
Learning about the real world undoes learning about made-up worlds. Science displaces superstition. Learning displaces ignorance. This is common knowledge, not a scientific theory.
Kids who learn to read will learn more in life than those who remain illiterate. We take that as a commonplace, but there has never been a double-blind scientific investigation of this.
Spaceflight kills off any belief in a flat Earth. Asserted without proof. Look down from space, see the curvature of the limb, the 'scales fall from the eyes'. Hell, a good ride on Google Earth rids the mind of lots of stupid old ideas.
PZ is correct.
Posted by: 6EQUJ5 | March 23, 2008 1:09 PM
Oh come off it Nisbet. That has to be the stupidest screed from you I've ever read. You and Mooney should be kicked off the group for this sort of crap.
3 cheers for Myers and Dawkins. Go guys, let 'em have it!
Posted by: eleanor | March 23, 2008 1:09 PM
Wait--why even have a personal ideology if you're not going to promote it?
Posted by: Scott Simmons | March 23, 2008 1:13 PM
Sorry, Matt, but you and Chris Mooney are dead wrong on this one. Chancelikely is right; this is one more golden opportunity to show the world that creationists can't deliver their message without deception, bending the truth, and outright lying.
What's more, if PZ and Dawkins are right about Mathis and Stein using Harvard video without permission, then the whole Expelled movie can be removed from the market before it's open to the public.
Malfeasance should always be confronted, not condoned even by silence.
Posted by: chezjake | March 23, 2008 1:16 PM
I would offer that while the public doesn't have a great understanding of science, they do understand hypocrisy. A person who went through the proper channels to view a film claiming to protest suppression of ideas - a film in which he appears - was barred from the screening and ordered to leave the premises. I certainly don't think this needs to be rehashed ad nauseum, but getting it out there shows the public the true colors of the producers of Expelled.
Posted by: James F | March 23, 2008 1:19 PM
"A) Learning about science makes you an atheist, it "kills off" religious faith.
B) If we boost science literacy in society, it will lead to erosion of religion, as religion fades away, we will get more and more science, and less and less religion.
C) Religion is a fairy tale, similar to hobgoblins, a fantasy, and even evil."
Yes, OK......but apart from that, what have the Romans ever done for us?
Is this page sponsored by 'The Onion' ?
Posted by: Sigmund | March 23, 2008 1:22 PM
chancelikely: "The framing that needs to occur is 'Creationists lie, and lie regularly.'"
True, but this frame is hamstrung by creationists peddling a lie with which Dawkins and Myers actually agree, namely that the theory of evolution leads to atheism.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | March 23, 2008 1:42 PM
Can Ben Stein be considered a spokesman for religion as a whole? He is being heard on the topic because he is speaking out about what he happens to believe in. Anyone else can do that as well. P.Z. Myers and Richard Dawkinsaren't the "messengers" for science, just two people who happen to be making public statements about science and religion. Anyone who disagrees is free to do the same. You don't end a debate by suppressing views you don't care for.
Posted by: Romeo Vitelli | March 23, 2008 1:45 PM
J.J. Ramsey-> It sure doesn't lead to jeebus
Posted by: Iggy | March 23, 2008 1:48 PM
As much as it is galling, I have to agree for two reasons. First you are right in seeing that these two are in danger of becoming liabilities. The public is fickle, and the press doesn't care if it's supporting you or dissing you, it's all the same for them. Dawkins in particular is risking overexposure, and if that happens it will not benefit the cause.
Second, it is time that rejection of ID and other 'creation science' is shown to be a broad trend; depending on the same few people to get the message out is a poor long term strategy and one that renders the message vulnerable. Others must step up to the plate, it's unfair to ask the small group that are holding up the colors do it on their own forever.
Posted by: DV82XL | March 23, 2008 2:03 PM
Vehement, white-hot disagreement, here. To refer to two of the most potent proponents of science and reason as 'liabilities' is to diminish what 'Science' truly is. Moreover, it devalues the tireless efforts of Myers and Dawkins to futher public understanding and appreciation of science.
That PZ and Richard have a personal as well as a professional stake in the release of this film should not serve as any justification for calls for silencing them, and I was quite sickened upon reading such a suggestion. We're supposed to the the team that encourages open dialogue and inquiry--an unbiased processing of the facts at hand, no matter how much we might wish for a different set of facts.
The producers of Expelled are wholly in the wrong here, from the disingenuous way in which they obtained their interviews in the first place to the loathsome manner in which they are selectively screening their film to sympathetic audiences so as to garner the support that the film, on its own merits, cannot hope to gain. They are manipulative liars, and to suggest that the stronger voices of objection be restrained in favor of soft soothing friendly ones that won't scare the poor faithful so much is appallingly weak. Science is not a democracy, and if it is presented to the public as such, how can this possibly further anyone's understanding?
Posted by: DanioPhD | March 23, 2008 2:36 PM
My initial thought is that science does certainly not lead to the rejection of religion or of a belief in god in general. It's just that some people such as Myers and Dawkins seem to make little difference between believing in the existence of any form of supernatural being (or anything supernatural) in general, and believing in the god of the bible or other holy books (or believing in already described and popular gods).
Or rather, if their position is a different one, they do not make that very clear and often leave a different impression.
As for the holy books, I do have to agree with them there - in the face of science, a belief in the god of the bible for example, can't really hold unless you bend over backwards to achieve a consensus. However, for way too many people god's complete existence seems to raise and fall with the value of their particular picture of god: There is a somewhat true core in claiming that science leads to the rejection of religion.
In conclusion, I think a very clear difference needs to be made between the rejection of particular religions and the rejection of god in general. They're not the same things and many people, including Dawkins and Myers, need to learn to always consider that.
Posted by: Petra | March 23, 2008 2:48 PM
I could be wrong, but isn'ts this kind of like Democrats blaming Ralph Nader for their own failures in losing the last two elections?
Posted by: fontinalis | March 23, 2008 3:06 PM
Remember that PZ Meyers was discussing evolution and religion in what he thought was going to be a completely different program looking at the compatibility of science and religion (or some such nonsense).
Let's face it how often have the creationists twisted say...Darwin's words. These people don't play fair regardless of what you say and frankly I think Dawkins and PZ are two of the best.
Plus they were dragged into this mess by the creationsists in the first place.
Personally I want this movie to come out. If it gets banned for some reason then that would be the worst possible outcome as then it would look like the evilutionists were trying to stop it. Even if it's the creationists own stupid fault that they tripped over their own lies.
Posted by: Richard Eis | March 23, 2008 3:07 PM
I think some of the comments and some of this post may have things a bit wrong.
Nisbet is right that one should communicate to the audience, not the choir. The problem here is that PZ and RD were deceived about who the audience was. True, they may have said exactly the same thing if they weren't lied to, but more likely is that they would have said nothing at all.
I do advocate a more tempered path (a la Ken Miller), but I still defend PZ and Dawkins on this one.
Posted by: Justin M | March 23, 2008 3:10 PM
Even if they were under the impression that the film was a "PBS style" documentary on science and religion, the comments by Dawkins and PZ are just as inflammatory and hurtful to any effort in building wider public trust for science and science education.
Posted by: Matthew C. Nisbet | March 23, 2008 3:16 PM
For the 'faithful, the 'believers in' stuff, science's great sin is that it is agnostic. It doesn't "believe in" ANYTHING merely on faith. It tests belief. It then records and distributes the results of those tests, for others to test; which results are then subsequently disseminated for further testing. Science, therefore, is always already reflexively testing itself. Belief is comfortable, it never tests itself, albeit it seemingly can be tested. What's amazing is how often it fails those tests...
Naughty, naughty Science.
Posted by: woody, tokin librul | March 23, 2008 3:18 PM
is this some kind of satire? are you kidding with this post?
i honestly can't tell
Posted by: tbell1 | March 23, 2008 3:21 PM
Oh come on Nisbet, you can't be serious. Telling Dawkins and Meyers to let others be the spokespeople for science is completely unrealistic. Whatever validity your thesis has about the harm they may do, it isn't helped by telling them to go away quietly. Maybe the impulse for combative declarations drives all three of you????
Posted by: freds | March 23, 2008 3:31 PM
"The PZ Myers Affair is Really, Really Bad for Science"
OK, so, if this is true, how can we tell?
Let's try to address the question in a scientific manner. What sort of tests can we set up to see if it is true? What sort of aftereffects ought we be seeing, and how would those aftereffects be different that if the Affair weren't really, really bad for science?
The big question for Science is, how can we tell if we are wrong? So, how can we tell in this case which side is wrong?
(And if we can't tell, then I guess this question is really just a matter of, . . ., well, . . ., faith.)
Posted by: Ahcuah | March 23, 2008 3:36 PM
Actually the video is correct, since people who are scientific literate do not take the religious myths they happen to believe as factual and bulletproof information about the universe.
I don't know if the statistical data back me up on this, but it seems to me that the less scientific literate populations tend to be the less religious they become. Maybe they are not atheist but tend more or less towards agnoticism!
And finally religion it can be evil simply because it's myths mixed with political power.
Posted by: baley | March 23, 2008 3:36 PM
Dawkins and Myers: It's Time to Let Others Be the Spokespeople for Science
So what's stopping the "others"?
Dawkins has a best-selling book. Myers has a top-rated blog. They reach a lot of people. People are interested in what they say.
The idea of letting the Expelled charlatans carry on their crap without opposition for fear of upsetting Joe Average is disgusting to me. It is cynical and cowardly.
Expelled is going to get publicity among the fundies anyway so why worry about them?. I think most non-deluded people can recognize hypocrisy and deceit, so why not expose it as much as possible?
There's an old saying that as far as I know has not reached its expiry date: "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing". I guess this would be considered poor framing or bad PR or some such similar nonsense.
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | March 23, 2008 3:42 PM
To be honest I thought PZ's comments were rather tame actually. Quietly witty, if a little condescending. No doubt there are people already praying that he burns in hell for all eternity for comparing their religion to knitting but really...
Posted by: Richard Eis | March 23, 2008 3:58 PM
Funny, Matt, but Martin Luther seemed to think that rationality was the enemy of faith -- are you telling me that he was wrong?
And if so, like Ahcuah, I'd ask for the data. Is it in fact the case that Myers and Dawkins are wrong, that science education has no impact on an individual's religious belief? On the face of it that seems preposterous and supremely counter-intuitive to me, and certainly goes against all the anecdotal instances I know, so if you've got contrary data, I'd be happy to see it. But, if you don't have such data, then you're simply pulling this claim out of your butt.
You routinely make pronouncements about what would be the most effective way to alter public opinion without providing any hard data that supports your claims. Honestly, if you expect scientists to believe you and change their behaviour, you have to provide evidence. Otherwise, you're just a concern troll.
Posted by: Tulse | March 23, 2008 4:07 PM
I'm solidly with Nisbet on this one.
Not only is Myers' message dangerous, but his naivite in front of the camera is embarrassing. The film makers have played him like a fiddle not only in what he says, but also in how he says it. They use an old trial lawyer's trick of having the questioner at a 90+ degree angle from the viewer (the jury or, in this case, the camera). As Myers struggles to make eye contact with both, you see his eyes shifting side-to-side somewhat uncertainly. This uncertain, shifting gaze is of course a classic indication that we use to judge untrustworthiness in our face-to-face interactions.
Myers -- and many others, I suspect -- are babes in the woods when it comes to this sort of thing. From a purely tactical point of view, scientists need to be trained to recognize these very basics of public speaking, film, interview, body language, etc., before they go up in front of even neutral audiences, let alone place themselves in the hands of hostile ones.
-Crow
Posted by: Crow | March 23, 2008 4:13 PM
A) Learning about science makes you an atheist, it "kills off" religious faith.
B) If we boost science literacy in society, it will lead to erosion of religion, as religion fades away, we will get more and more science, and less and less religion.
C) Religion is a fairy tale, similar to hobgoblins, a fantasy, and even evil.
Well done! You've learnt three things today.
Posted by: Wrought | March 23, 2008 4:17 PM
Shorter Matt Nisbet: "It's O.K. We're just going to be deloused."
I don't think that atheism is much of an accomplishment for anybody a high school education--how hard is it to notice that the world isn't in fact haunted?-but nonbelievers are routinely treated as second-class citizens. The Hell with that.
Incidentally, if frank atheism were really so favorable to the Baptist Taliban, they wouldn't be so anguished about it. In fact, America once had a tradition of vocal skepticism. PZ and the others are just taking up where Mark Twain and Ingersoll left off. It's about time.
Posted by: Jim Harrison | March 23, 2008 4:43 PM
Jeeze! Who died and made you king?
Posted by: divalent | March 23, 2008 4:51 PM
A cowardly proposal for capitulation.
Posted by: Kerry Maxwell | March 23, 2008 5:01 PM
Yeah, passionate voices should definitely stifle themselves for the greater good. I'm just concerned that you haven't laid out the overall strategy for combatting creationism--how can we get anything done without luminaries such as you and Mooney dictating our actions?
God DAMN I'm sick of ineffectual tools with zero track record of success telling everyone "back off, we've got this."
Posted by: borehole | March 23, 2008 5:02 PM
Concerning Matthews' plead to PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins that "when it comes to Expelled, it's time to let other people be the messengers for science", it is worth pointing out that in a recent interview Dawkins admitted the following:
Posted by: Steindor J. Erlingsson | March 23, 2008 5:10 PM
"This is not about censoring your ideas and positions, but rather being smart, strategic, tactical, and ultimately effective in promoting science rather than your own personal ideology, books, or blog. I will have more to say on Expelled strategy in a talk I am giving Thursday night at UWisc-Eau Claire and then next week Monday in a lunch time talk given with Chris Mooney at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School."
Ha I love, berate them on using Expelled to generate more readers to their books and blogs, while in the next sentence use the same POS Film to peddle your own lectures. I can't be the only one to notice that gem. Do as I say not as I do, right Mr. Nisbit.
Posted by: Andrew | March 23, 2008 5:11 PM
Matt - You're dreaming. If there was an official Evolution Defense Team with a command headquarters, huge budget, and army of strategists standing around a map table covered with model tanks and airplanes then yes, the rogue actions of PZ and Dawkins would be bad news. But there ain't.
The large organizations don't want to get involved with the real politics of defending evolution, and there is no coordinated effort other than producing lots of brochures and editorials. There is a need for the occasional individual efforts. You talk like there's a science to all this stuff, and there is to a limited extent, and you're good when you're speaking to that. But you need to get out on the streets a little more and realize there are some non-ivory tower dyanmics to this issue that have to be addressed in less academic ways. PZ is to be commended for having brought a human dimension to what is generally perceived by broader audiences as a relatively dull academic issue.
Posted by: Randy Olson | March 23, 2008 5:24 PM
"The simplistic and unscientific claim that more knowledge leads to less religion might be the particular delusion of Dawkins, Myers, and many others, but it is by no means the official position of science,"
So please tell us what is the official position of Science?
You are the one who is deluded in thinking that you know better.
Posted by: hermit | March 23, 2008 5:25 PM
If you guys really want to violate the framing protocols why don't you pop on over to the screen writer for Expelled's blog and tell him what you think of the PZ expulsion. He says he wants to give us a hug. Let's give the lying sack of shit a huge group hug:
http://kevinwrites.typepad.com/otherwise_known_as_kevin_/2008/03/chris-mooney-ge.html
Posted by: Norman Doering | March 23, 2008 5:32 PM
building wider public trust for science and science education.
Sheesh... I'm waiting for the "We must not offend the Geocentrists and Flat Earthers!" post.
Posted by: Eric | March 23, 2008 5:37 PM
Your posting here, Dr. Nesbit, more than anything reminds me of Neville Chamberlain waiving his umbrella and bleating "Peace in our time!. . . . "
We need much more direct attack on superstition, not less.
Appeasement and hand wringing have done nothing to keep the looming theocracy at bay.
Posted by: waldteufel | March 23, 2008 5:37 PM
The simplistic and unscientific claim that more knowledge leads to less religion might be the particular delusion of Dawkins, Myers, and many others, but it is by no means the official position of science, though they often implicitly claim to speak for science.
Science has official positions? Wow, now I feel as if I really don't know what's going on. I have published before; perhaps they were only going to tell me after I got my Ph.D.?
The problem that you, Mooney, Olson, et al. don't seem to grasp is that the fundamentalists already have a ready answer for theists who accept evolution: they're deluded by Satan. If the idea is not to scare off creationists before we can cram some knowledge in their heads, that is going to be a fruitless endeavor. The ones who are running scared run just as scared from theists as they do from atheists. Getting Ken Miller, Francisco Ayala, Keith Miller, or anybody else on board here is not going to help because their statements are already suspect. "The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose", as Shakespeare put it, and the fundamentalists believe that the theistic evolutionists' sugared words hide a spiritual poison that is all the more dangerous because it's made to look ostensibly inviting.
Since this is the intended audience for the film Expelled, nothing PZ has done or said is going to make a blind bit of difference. I've seen the film. It's inept. It's boring. It drives one to distraction. They need to invest in a Steady-Cam and a narrator who doesn't sound like he's on a permanent IV drip of Novocaine. It is, in short, straight-to-video creationist pablum and the only people who are going to care are the ones who are already unreachable even by theistic evolutionists.
Posted by: Nullifidian | March 23, 2008 5:47 PM
Sheesh... I'm waiting for the "We must not offend the Geocentrists and Flat Earthers!" post.
I think a more exact analogy would be to Biblical archaeology. This field poses significant challenges to the faith of Biblical 'literalists' so what we clearly need to do is not offend them by shutting up deranged wackos like Ze'ev Herzog, who speaks blithely of Yahweh having been believed to have a female consort and there never being an Exodus, and make sure that our message is being presented by someone they already trust: Ron Wyatt.
Posted by: Nullifidian | March 23, 2008 5:49 PM
If you're right - this blog post is even more damaging.
Posted by: Idlethought | March 23, 2008 5:54 PM
As long as Dawkins and PZ continue to be the representative voices from the pro-science side in this debate, it is really bad for those of us who care about promoting public trust in science and science education.
Wow, somebody with a brain meets up with a bunch of antifanatical zealots... ;)
I agree, let PZ and Richard speak for atheists side of the political culture war that they are actually most interested in, but not as representatives for science, and I recommend that physicists, like, Sean Carroll, (and whatever that popularizer, Blake Stacey claims to be)... and every other scientist who openly supports this line of attack, jump on the same bandwagon of non-science and be proud of it.
My turn to get burried with crap.
Posted by: island | March 23, 2008 6:07 PM
"the comments by Dawkins and PZ are just as inflammatory and hurtful to any effort in building wider public trust for science and science education"
What do you mean by "building trust"? Pretending that all is peachy and that religion (as generally practiced) is just happy with science?? You can't go far into science without disproving the major tenets of most religions; leaving nothing but de-fanged moral advice, and colorful rituals. Shall we also argue that science does ont undermine astrology because somewhere there 'might' be some pattern that we cannot discribe in the univers.
If we want to get anywhere, we must be honest. Theology can co-exist with science (it does not require actual 'factual' belief) but religion in all but it's vaguest, new agey spirituality terms cannot. Don't pretend otherwise.
Posted by: jayh | March 23, 2008 6:21 PM
hah, good luck. The biggest pompous egotists will voluntarily downplay a chance to be seen as some type of "leading spokesmen for science"? Yeah and monkeys might fly out me arse. Most fanatical atheists and evolutionists, as seen by the comments here, are too stupid to realize how fanatic they look to ordinary people. They are nerds on a mission and will get all hot and bothered if you dare to suggest that their fanatical anti social attitude and meesage is anything but totally righteous and cool. Nerds, that's the biggest problem with you guys, you're socially moronic and uber egotistic.
Posted by: boom-chika-wow-wow | March 23, 2008 6:22 PM
Dr. Nisbet, you seem to be a bit confused about something. The scientists who blog here aren't running for office this November and they don't need to pander to the base so that they can win. Nor do they need to "move to the right" to gain a stronghold in the general election.
The general public does not get to decide science and when they think they do, they don't (see Dover)
Posted by: ken | March 23, 2008 6:23 PM
After reading through the comments to Nisbet's post a rerun of an old anthropology film flashed into my mind. There are two stone age tribes standing in an open field yelling, hurling insults, shaking their primitive weapons at each other. After several rounds of bluff charging each other, one of the tribesmen is, by accident, seriously wounded. At which point they all packed up their families and leave for home. Each side feeling that they had somehow once again verified their position and defended their honor.
Apparently no one, even the self-proclaimed leaders, paused long enough to formulate a long term strategy for success. Each tribe simply repeated what had happened in the countless prior confrontations by countless prior generations.
Thank you, Nisbet, for your suggestion. However, it is apparent that the tribesmen are more interested in their traditional method of issue resolution.
Posted by: Endoff | March 23, 2008 6:26 PM
Nullifidian: "I think a more exact analogy would be to Biblical archaeology. This field poses significant challenges to the faith of Biblical 'literalists' so what we clearly need to do is not offend them by shutting up deranged wackos like Ze'ev Herzog, who speaks blithely of Yahweh having been believed to have a female consort and there never being an Exodus, and make sure that our message is being presented by someone they already trust: Ron Wyatt."
If the analogy were to hold, people like Wyatt would be analogous to creationists and be lambasted, while the serious biblical archaeologists would be divided into those who believe the findings of biblical archaeology are fatal to faith and those who don't. AFAIK, that's pretty much the current state of things.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | March 23, 2008 6:30 PM
So in other words, whoever "understands" Darwinian evolution automatically abandons not only religious beliefs, but science as well, even if Darwinian evolution is flawed scientifically or without substantial hard-evidence. We can safely say Dawkins is no scientist, neither is PZ Myers, scientists put hypotheses to the test, long before it becomes a theory (ie: fact). If those two represent science then I rather learn about Computer Science at my local church. They make great leaders for the drooling atheist animals, nuff said!
Posted by: Those Pesky Darwinists | March 23, 2008 6:32 PM
"A) Learning about science makes you an atheist, it "kills off" religious faith.
B) If we boost science literacy in society, it will lead to erosion of religion, as religion fades away, we will get more and more science, and less and less religion.
C) Religion is a fairy tale, similar to hobgoblins, a fantasy, and even evil."
Well, since I agree with all of the above, I disagree with you...I think both Profs. should continue to speak up loud and often, and spread the word.
Posted by: HadasS | March 23, 2008 6:42 PM
If the analogy were to hold, people like Wyatt would be analogous to creationists and be lambasted, while the serious biblical archaeologists would be divided into those who believe the findings of biblical archaeology are fatal to faith and those who don't. AFAIK, that's pretty much the current state of things.
Only if one assumes that reaching out to people of faith is the issue. It isn't. Most people of faith don't really care one way or the other about what their children learn in school, nor do they know who Richard Dawkins or PZ Myers are. Most people don't read any books, let alone those of Richard Dawkins. The only places you'll see this kind of hand-wringing are among the relatively well-educated crowd who are worried about the reception Dawkins and Myers will have on theists. But who are the theists who they are worrying about? Not the average theist, certainly; the theists who know who Dawkins and Myers are are creationists or well-read liberal theists. The well-read liberal theists don't need to be told their faith doesn't conflict with science, and the creationists won't believe if it if you do tell them.
I grew up in rural West Virginia, and it seems to me that Mooney, Nisbet, Olson, etc. aren't knowledgable about that tradition. It's very insular, clings to itself and its own understandings, and is resistant to anyone who tells them anything different from what they already 'know'. That anyone includes theists. The theists who accept evolution have been deluded and damned by Satan. They don't need to be listened to, they need to be proselytized to turn aside from a path which will lead straight to their damnation. If they refuse to see the obvious truth of a literal six-day creation week, then they are the devil's minions and will be defeated in the coming End Days.
That's what you're dealing with here, and this is the audience which Expelled is playing to.
Posted by: Nullifidian | March 23, 2008 6:51 PM
So, Dawkins and PZ are representative voices from the pro-science side in this debate.
But these particular representative voices being so is really bad for "those of us who care about promoting public trust in science and science education".
Aren't you implying Dawkins and PZ are not part of "those of us who care about promoting public trust in science and science education"?
I sense animus.
Posted by: John Morales | March 23, 2008 6:54 PM
Dear Professor Nisbet:
If you believe that "framing" is so effective, then don't you use it when attempting to communicate with folks like PZ Myers? Surely, using framing, you ought to be able to present the dangers you foresee in a way that he can understand?
Or was this post meant to be a "framed" message to Myers? If so, it failed rather spectacularly.
Or does "framing" only work on stupid people?
Or perhaps framing doesn't work on anyone who is already sure they're in the right? If so, it seems unlikely to offer much hope of coming to terms with anti-science theists.
Posted by: Jeff Dee | March 23, 2008 6:55 PM
I like the way Neil deGrasse Tyson put it:
What would Nisbet say? I have proof that story is false, but I wouldn't want to hurt your feelings. You want to teach it to your children during homeschool science time? Go right ahead. You are going to help fight global warming, though, right??
Grow some grapes, Nisbet. Science doesn't have "positions." Science has truth. So long as PZ and RD are out there telling the truth, and you're slinking around worried about making enemies of the evangelical hippies who might help fight global warming, they will always get more attention and get more results than you.
Posted by: Josh | March 23, 2008 7:12 PM
I'm sorry, but doesn't this seem totally obvious? We see this all the time:
An ID/creationist says that evolution is anti-Christian, and the preacher presents it to his congregation as a dichotomy... either choose a 'belief' in evolution or a belief in Christianity.
The way to fight such a technique is NOT to agree with the fundamentalist that this dichotomy is correct, which is basically what PZ does with way too much frequency. The way to combat that is to point out that many Christians also support evolution.
PZ is a powerful and popular voice. I just think he has his priorities mixed up. Instead of pushing his lofty goal of making atheism the predominate viewpoint in America, I wish he'd push for the more reasonable goal of improving science education by demonstrating how fun and entertaining it can be. This, in my opinion, has always been his strong point anyway.
Posted by: doctorgoo | March 23, 2008 7:13 PM
Nullifidian: "Most people of faith don't really care one way or the other about what their children learn in school,"
Oh really? The members of the NCSE then must just sit on their thumbs all day. It's not like they have to worry about school boards in Texas and Kansas being run by creationists, or Floridians trying to loosen standards so that teachers can misinform children. And it certainly isn't as if they didn't have to prepare for any landmark case in Dover, Pennsylvania about teaching children ID.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | March 23, 2008 7:19 PM
It's amazing how effective Dawkins and PZ are as communicators. They both have huge audiences, dedicated followings, and are very eloquent and engaging speakers and writers. Why would we tell these men to be quiet about anything? Their feelings on religion aside, the empirical data are in. PZ and Dawkins are framings things in a way that results in one of the most popular blogs in the internet (certainly the #1 for science) and best selling books respectively. All the evidence is that these two men reach the intended audience, that they communicate science, and have been exceedingly effective in changing the communication about the DI and ID movement. After all, look at the NYT coverage. Was intelligent design even mentioned? No! They called them what they were, creationists.
Why do you think this is? Because we have been opposing their bullshit, and people like Dawkins and PZ in particular have been effective in unmasking the BS behind the new creationist attack on science.
At a certain point I have to say, where is your evidence? Where is the proof these men are bad for science? This clip where they speak honestly about their beliefs? Hardly.
Your continued attacks on two of our best communicators in the name of improving science communication really only demonstrates to me you wouldn't know your best assets in this fight if they sat on your head.
Posted by: MarkH | March 23, 2008 7:20 PM
Matt, I will agree that we need the non-atheist scientists and educators to be front and center and getting press attention. But any attempt to try to "hush up" and "cover up" Dawkins will backfire as it is clearly dishonest and no one will believe it. Failing to exploit a clear demonstration of the creationists' true colors will not help either.
Sure it might have been nice of Dawkins and Myers were apathetic towards religion when it comes to school board battles, but they are not. That ain't going to change.
One might point out that if they are so certain that understanding of science destroys religion then why do they feel the need to attack religion in the first place? Simply teaching science would be enough. On the other hand one can point that the creationists want to say science destroys belief in God then they simply have no faith and are indeed providing reason to believe their religion is false. To both sides here: oh ye of little faith...
The best way to deal with those with religious concerns is not to cover up Dawkins, but to admit in full honesty that there is a full range of religious beliefs. That many fully accept God and scientific fact of evolution disproves the idea that one must accept one or the other.
Posted by: A Lurker | March 23, 2008 7:29 PM
MarkH, it's just too bad when PZ and Dawkins spend their time (and blogging skills) bashing ALL religion (not just the wingnuts) instead of popularizing science.
Sure, the moderate and liberal Christians will laugh along with the atheists when we point out the absurdities and the hypocrisies of the so-called "PZ affair".
But when PZ insults all religious persons in 3 ways Matt pointed out in this post, it just plays into their hands.
I don't want PZ to be quiet about popularizing science, I just want him to quit giving the other side ammo when it comes to polarizing their side against science!
Posted by: doctorgoo | March 23, 2008 7:37 PM
So if PZ and Dawkins are asked to describe their personal beliefs by documentary filmmakers they should refer them to a "science communicator"? It's a fact that there are many scientists who think that "religion is a fairytale" (the majority in some forums). There are also many who have lost their religion after having been exposed to science. Are you saying they should avoid ever being caught on video?
Posted by: poke | March 23, 2008 7:38 PM
So, you think they should just stay in the closet? Fair enough, I suppose you're doing your part by making sure to exclude them and anyone else who disagrees with you on the "atheists should just shut up" perspective from your framing discussions.
It's interesting that you didn't even mention that they were filmed under false pretenses. When faced with such anti-science propaganda the first thing you do is attack the people who are willing to admit they don't get warm fuzzies whenever someone talks about religion. You leave the whole anti-science angle alone completely, and even go so far as to call this anti-science propaganda film a "documentary". It's almost like you're not fighting for science at all.
Posted by: JT | March 23, 2008 7:42 PM
Mark,
You seem to be late to the conversation. See the blog posts here about the National Academies report on evolution, the posts about the AAAS panel on science and religion, or my recent interview on Point of Inquiry.
I have always maintained that Dawkins and PZ are great communicators *for their relatively small audience* of atheists and science enthusiasts. What they do for this audience is intensify their beliefs while providing them talking points for expressing their worldview and attacking religion. Indeed, among the atheist netroots, PZ's preferred brand of Don Imus atheism has become very popular, spreading all sorts of wrong headed myths that religious people are stupid and that science literacy will set them free.
But when your goal is to communicate about evolutionary science to what the National Academies calls the vast wobbly middle of Americans who might be moderately religious and unsure of the differences between evolution and intelligent design, as the video clip shows well, PZ and Dawkins only provide rhetorical fodder for the creationists.
Right now, in the movie and in the news coverage of Expelled, PZ and Dawkins are the stand ins and representative voice of science. In fact, in agreeing to do interviews for Expelled, whether they were tricked or not, they make it very easy for the producers to use them as straw men, painting all of science and all scientists as atheists and extreme critics of religion.
As such, what they end up doing really, really well is drive a wedge between the few atheist Americans who agree with them *and everyone else.* For turning moderately religious people off to science and evolution, you couldn't have focus grouped a better video clip or campaign commercial than the one displayed above.
If Dawkins and PZ actually cared about an effective communication strategy on Expelled, they would admit that they screwed up, lay low, and defer all interviews to organizations such as NCSE, AAAS, National Academies, or scientists such as Francis Ayala and Ken Miller.
Well crafted messages from these organizations and scientists that focus on the overwhelming consensus view on evolutionary science, its role as a building block for medical and social progress, and the strong support for evolution from many religious traditions, is the right counter-message. In fact its the message that the National Academies researched and tested in focus groups and polling, as they describe in the current issue of CBE Life Sciences Education.
In the process, these organizations should also underscore that the rhetorical straw men shown in the film (i.e. Dawkins, PZ, et al) do not speak for science and are not representative of the views of scientists.
Posted by: Matthew C. Nisbet | March 23, 2008 7:49 PM
MarkH: "It's amazing how effective Dawkins and PZ are as communicators."
Communicators to whom? Sure, to an audience that thinks it's funny to describe believers as "pious twits" and "little old ladies who faint at the sight of monkeys," or who like it when the religious are likened to a Hitler-like menace, they are popular. Even to those who don't like that sort of thing find it has sort of a train wreck appeal. It doesn't follow from this that they are effective at reaching whose who might be persuaded to accept evolution but aren't yet convinced.
Why do you think that those who believe that science leads to atheism are going to be too good at reaching the religious?
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | March 23, 2008 7:52 PM
Let's not forget the core issue here: This film is a dishonest underhanded piece of garbage. The makers Lied to Meyers and Dawkins and others. This reeks of a smear campaign, and it looks like its totally backfiring on those Expelled jerks.
I don't see why they should 'lay low'. Expelling PZ from expelled is the icing on the cake of their hipocrisy. All they have to do is point at it with the biggest pointiest stick they can find.
Posted by: DamnDirtyApe | March 23, 2008 8:27 PM
Last I heard this is a free country, and Meyers and Dawkins can say whatever they want to. In fact, as a working professional scientist, I kind of resent someone who is NOT a professional scientist -- that would be you, Dr. Nisbet -- telling me or my colleagues how we should react to aggressive and dishonest proponents of a medieval world view.
Frankly, any objective observer of politics since around 1980 will have discerned that attempting to triangulate one's public position so as to keep the ignorant and superstitious from having the vapors is a losing proposition.
By the way, one can be smart and deluded at the same time.
Posted by: Stuart Dryer | March 23, 2008 8:45 PM
Except when it doesn't. How many counter examples are required?
Posted by: heddle | March 23, 2008 8:55 PM
Oh, I see...
Previous blog entries: 2 comments, 1 comment, 0 comments, 13 comments, 0 comments, 0 comments, 3 comments, 0 comments.
But, with a rebuke of Myers and Dawkins (a double wammy) you're well on the way to a century. That goes some way to disproving your point. What use is framing a message that's never heard?
Posted by: Lev | March 23, 2008 9:16 PM
if Darwinists are upset about this film it's only because the general public will see what is really behind so-called objective scientists like Dawkins and PZ. Simply put, they are NOT scientists who deal strictly with data and then go home at night; rather they have a non-scientific agenda to push, undergirded by their antagonsims against religion. I think they are embarrased because they've been caught. As the late Dr. J. Allen Hynek once observed; "...science is not always what scientists do...".
Posted by: gleaner63 | March 23, 2008 9:19 PM
You know heddle, most of the time I take swipes at you for being an incredibly rude and self-indulgent asshat... lol... (like I'm doing right now just for giggles)
But probably my very favorite comment of yours that I've read was the one where you proposed the thought experiment of providing 5 real scientific papers written by scientists who are atheists, and 5 written by scientists who happen to be Christians... and then see if people can tell which papers were written by Christians based on their religious beliefs, which according to some, must make it impossible to perform real science.
Posted by: doctorgoo | March 23, 2008 9:24 PM
"It's a fact that there are many scientists who think that "religion is a fairytale" (the majority in some forums). There are also many who have lost their religion after having been exposed to science. Are you saying they should avoid ever being caught on video?"
There are many THEOLOGIANS who fall into that camp. Who love the history of religion and belief, and the implications of the old tales... but who don't actually believe this stuff is actual history.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 23, 2008 9:44 PM
This is really one of the dumbest blogs I've ever seen. PZ Myers noticed it too and slammed it to the wall:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/im_supposed_to_sit_down_and_sh.php
Telling people to shut up because you don't like their style gets you only insults from them, and well deserved ones too!
Posted by: Dale Husband | March 23, 2008 9:45 PM
anonymous above (about theolgians) is me. hit enter too fast.
Posted by: jayh | March 23, 2008 9:46 PM
Dr. Nisbet, please report to the Remedial English Composition classroom first thing Monday morning.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | March 23, 2008 9:50 PM
A reminder to those who like to talk about how "falsifiability" defines science, meaningfulness, etc: “Probability” is not falsifiable per Popperian constructs! Probability is a very important parameter in science but “meaningless” by strict construction of the standard of falsifiability! For example, given a claimed 50/50 chance, no particular run of heads or tails could be given as dispositive of that claim - it would just have 1/2^n chance of happening, along a continuum of lesser chance. You could make an arbitrary decision that you couldn’t find the claim credible anymore, but you couldn’t justify drawing the line just there (or at all really, as I explained.) Tough luck! So I don’t want to hear anyone say, “If it’s not falsifiable, it isn’t science” without acknowledging this big fly in the ointment.
Posted by: Neil B. | March 23, 2008 9:52 PM
Wow. This entry sent the foul mouthed Paul Z. Myers off the deep end.
Posted by: William Wallace | March 23, 2008 9:54 PM
Dr. Nisbet, here's one of the questions I came here to ask:
What is the goal of calling on people not to do what they are already doing and will surely continue to do?
On a purely rhetorical-tactical level, you're setting yourself up for a loss; on an informational level, you're wasting your readers' time.
This sort of call makes sense as a rallying cry for your posse, and possibly supplies some meager psychological gratification, but its value as communication otherwise seems close to zero.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | March 23, 2008 10:01 PM
As noted above by 2 commenters, one correct idea is trying to get more than the usual suspects to lead the charge. As other commenters noted however, there's been a dearth of effective people to do that.
On the rest I think Prof. Nisbet is indeed wrong for reasons Mark H., John Lynch, and Brian Switek (plus several commenters noted). As others have said, one way to "frame" this is indeed to note that evolution is supported by atheists and theists (Richard, PZ, Ken Miller) alike whereas (in spite of spin to the contrary) ID pretty much is indeed supported by fundamentalist religion - mostly Christian but some from Islam, Judaism and Hinduism. It'd be nice if all evolutionary biologists and like minded scientists and thinkers could indeed focus only on the science. But the opponents are tangled up in religion; that makes the frame one of religion in part and hard to ignore. Especially if one participates, as PZ and Richard did, in a faked-out docudrama which is supposed to address religion and science but is actually a stealth attack on evolution and science in general. Naive? Perhaps. But the resultant fallout does expose the mendacity of ID and its cheering squad in the constant lies. As again noted on the Pharyngula threads, "there is no such thing as bad publicity" is false. If you get caught being a hypocrite you lose. Ask former Gov Spitzer...
Posted by: szqc | March 23, 2008 10:13 PM
With all due respect, Dr. Nisbet, I think you're way off here. The main message that the public needs is that scientists just like other human beings have their own opinions.
Intelligent Design propagandists will no doubt focus on the views of the so-called militant atheists, but that's a part of their propaganda. As far as a genuine public understanding of science goes, the message should be clear. Scientists of all faiths and all belief systems accept evolution, and the key point is that ultimately it is the science that matters, not their religious beliefs. After all, attempting to temper individual scientists' views on religion only gives credence to the false notion that science panders to religious ideologies.
Posted by: xcdesignproponentsists | March 23, 2008 10:15 PM
I totally fail to see why so many people get so very upset by a post like this, and why so many accuse Nisbet of helping the other side by even raising the issue.
See, I'm a committed, even passionate Democrat. But no one goes around accusing me of being a closet Republican when I raise the issue "Is Hillary Clinton good for the Democratic party?" In fact, that's exactly the conversation that the Democrats need to be having right now.
Just as this is exactly the conversation that those in the scientific community concerned with public education need to having right now.
-Crow
Posted by: Crow | March 23, 2008 10:23 PM
Dr. Nisbet, here's the other question:
Can you name any worldview/ideology/cultural shift/etc that has won a place in the sun by framing strategies and without deliberate and aggressive confrontation?
The only such examples I can think of are trivial, such as advertising campaigns. Neither grand ambitions, such as the End to Superstition, nor practicable social goals, such as better science education, seem amenable to the techniques used by Pepsi to supplant Coca-Cola.
But I'm a lowly street activist, doubtlessly bent by decades of conflict, and perhaps hysterically blind to historical instances of transformation by unaugmented cognitive therapy.
Since I've already burdened our host with two futile challenges, is there anyone in the posse who can point me toward the specimen event(s) being requested?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | March 23, 2008 10:27 PM
Know what? Considering the reaction to this spectacularly insulting and ineptly written post, you couldn't focus group a better message for the anti-framing crowd.
As long as Nisbet and Mooney continue to be the representative voic