Randy Olson, director of the movie, Flock of Dodos has sent in some thoughts regarding the ongoing conversation here about his movie. A lot of commenters were offering opinions on how evolutionary biologists should communicate with the rest of us. I thought I'd publish his entire comment here in a post of its own. (Added note: Randy is fielding questions and opinions in the comment thread if you want to join in.)
Hi - A big thanks to Carl for such a nice write up about the screening (which was a huge amount of fun). At each of the panel discussions for the first round of screenings of "Flock of Dodos" people asked, "So what can we, as evolutionists, do about this problem?" Here's a summary of some of my responses.
TEN THINGS EVOLUTIONISTS CAN DO TO IMPROVE COMMUNICATION(Why is it this list took me all of one minute to outline? Could it be that the problems are so immense that it's easy to make a lot of progress with even a tiny bit of effort?)
1) Quality Control - so much of the mass communication of evolution is so dull and uninspiring. Two specific examples - the 8 part Evolution series by PBS released a few years ago and the half hour video produced last year titled, "Evolution, Why Bother?" sponsored by AIBS. We ordered the 7th episode of the Evolution series, on God and religion, and found it unwatchable. At one of my recent screenings a member of the audience offered up that she ordered the second episode for a museum display and found the same thing - five minutes into it they shut it off. The AIBS video is tragically bad - nothing but talking heads and still images. It doesn't matter how little budget they had, any introductory film student could have explained to them that film/video is a visual medium. The primary communication takes place through the images presented. When all you show are people's faces talking, you are saying virtually nothing. These sorts of productions need the simple, honest feedback of evolutionists who have purchased their videos, shown them to their neighbors, and watched them fall asleep. Just send them a note and say this is not good enough. Raise the bar. Its that simple. When evolution media looks bad, evolutionists look bad. Cost of this Suggestion (to give media producers, including me, your critical feedback) to you: $0
2) Attitude - "Never rise above." It's one of the simple principles we learned in acting class. Whenever you condescend (as perhaps I did in the above paragraph) you lose the sympathy of your audience. Plain and simple. When evolutionists call intelligent designers idiots, its fine among evolutionists, but for the broader, less informed audience, it just makes everyone side with the people being condescended towards. It's a simple principle of mass communication. Furthermore, even though Stephen Jay Gould was my hero in graduate school nearly 30 years ago, today he is culturally irrelevant for undergraduates at the introductory level. His essays, which I cherished as an introductory student back then, are now unusable. My students at USC literally asked me to never assign them his essays again. They find his style and voice to be arrogant, elitist, condescending, verbose ... the list goes on and on. Cost of this Suggestion (to avoid rising above) to you: $0
3) Concision - it's a byproduct of the information era. Get used to it. In fact, practice it. The most effective means of communication is through storytelling. The shorter, more concise, and punchier the story you can tell, the greater the interest you will hold with an audience. And yes, as a scientist you need to maintain accuracy and sometimes even precision. But still, just practicing being shorter and punchier doesn't hurt anything. And you can see the results of this in Hollywood and advertising pitchmen - through sheer practice they are able to tell entire stories in very few words. Cost of this Suggestion (to practice being concise) to you: $0
4) Modernization - A CNN poll two years ago showed that 44% of Americans get their information on science and technology through television - more than any other medium. We are a television society. So why isn't the world of science communication geared towards this, even just a little bit? This is a question you can ask of the major science agencies. There are now dozens of science writing programs around the country, but no Science Electronic Media programs. Cost of this Suggestion (to realize how mass media has changed from print to electronic) to you: $0
5) Prioritization - Effective communication costs money. Real, cold, hard dollars. Scientists tend to look at communication as a funny, frivolous option that is meant mostly for those who are predisposed to it. As a result they sit through technical talks with bad visuals and poor sound, and really don't care. You can see this every week in your local departmental seminar. But on a higher scale, you see it in the tiny prioritization of science communication in research grants. Occasionally a few dollars are allocated for "outreach." But compare this sort of prioritization with businesses making commercial products where they accept the need to spend perhaps half of their budget on marketing and advertising. This isn't to say that scientists should turn themselves into cheap salesmen (which is the resentful complaint I hear to this suggestion), but the fact is the 9/11 Commission was the first government study to accept the need to allocate equal resources to its communication in order for it to make a difference. EVERYONE needs to accept we now live in an information-glutted world, and if you don't pay sufficient attention to the communication of what you have to say, then what you have to say will go unheard. It's a matter of priorities. Cost of this Suggestion (to allocate more funds to communication) to you: as much as you can afford - its time to make it hurt a little, to make up for the lack of prioritization in the past
6) Understanding - intellectuals are handicapped as mass communicators. I had this line in my film, but took it out because it sounded too insulting. But its true. Mass audiences do not follow people who think, they follow people who act. Intellectuals are trained to think, not act. Its one of their charming traits, but it's also a handicap. Try taking an acting class and you'll get to know about this intimately. And it's not that you necessarily need to do something about this right now, it's just that you need to start developing some awareness of it. Cost of this Suggestion (to consider the consequences of being too intellectual) to you: $0
7) Risk Taking/Innovation - every stock investor knows you allocate at least 10% of your stock portfolio to high risk ventures. The voices of mass communication of science today are very homogenized. There are no signs that formal investment in high risk innovation of science communication has been taking place. You need to look at your science agencies and ask what percentage of their funding is going to high risk, wild ideas. They may sound irresponsible, but without them, you end up with homogenization. Come on, folks, we're talking about basic out-breeding dynamics here. Cost of this Suggestion (to take a few chances) to you: $0
8) Humor - it's yet another byproduct of the information era. It's no coincidence that news anchors, who were stoically serious 30 years ago, today tell jokes and tease each other. Or that The Daily Show on Comedy Central is the most popular form of news for kids (as well as A LOT of adults). Or that Michael Moore, Al Franken, and Bill Maher have become such popular news critics. It's a major channel of communication. So lighten up, evolutionists. Cost of this Suggestion (to lighten up a bit) to you: $0
9) Unscripted Media and the Mass Audience - this goes with modernization. Whether you realize it or not, the mass audience has changed drastically in just the past decade. About half of the acting jobs that were available a decade ago in Hollywood have now been lost to reality television, which is a form of "unscripted entertainment" (yes, I know that even reality shows have a great deal of structure to them, but they are still far more unscripted at the fine scale than the standard sitcoms and dramas). The mass audience is bored, and desperate for anything unpredictable. Which is why when Richard Prum, in a moment of brilliance, yanked the microphone away from me as I was droning on about the need for spontaneity, the audience erupted more than any other moment in the entire evening. Cost of this Suggestion (to be more spontaneous) to you: $0
10) Sincerity - and furthermore, even though Dr. Prum was a bit ungainly in his performance after grabbing the microphone, the audience didn't care. The gesture was so sincere, came from such a visceral level, showed such passion, such risk-taking, so much desire to act (rather than just pontificate as I was doing), that he stole their hearts. There is a great deal to be learned from that. Cost of this Suggestion (to be more sincere) to you: $)
Comments
Hello Randy;
I really look forward to the opportunity of seeing "Flock". Is there any thought of an advanced screening of this type in the Southern California area? I would love to attend.
My question to you (and comment) is, who exactly are you offering these suggestions to? You see, I don't think most people doing actual work in the evolutionary sciences care a bit about communicating their work to a wider audience. Certainly some do, but most are just doing work they find fascinating and rewarding. There are dozens of fields (biology, genetics, archaeology, paleontology, physics, geology, etc.) that in various ways advance our knowledge of evolution. Within each field are thousands of people doing work. Thus, these people could be called "Evolutionists" (in fact, certainly they are that. Whatever work they are doing at any given moment is predicated on certain evolutionary principles) but they are not part of some passionate movement to convince a wider audience that "truth has merit"!
As I said in an earlier comment, I think in our highly specialized society, it has become the job of writers like Carl and filmmakers like you or TV producers, all with a deep interest in science to take scientific work and bring it, in a easily digestable plate, to the mass audience. So my comment is - I think your 10 points of advice are best given to your own colleagues. All the points make sense (some more than others). I just think that it is advice that would be put to use in your own works. It sounds, from Carl's discription of "Flock", that you personally used your own advice on several levels. I know Carl does as well - there is a reason that this has become a wildly successful blog, and I assume his books are selling as well as one might hope that a work describing science would do. Let's remember, that a large chunk of the population has virtually no interest in science other than how the latest technologies personally effect them.
Posted by: john | February 17, 2006 11:41 AM
Hi John - My comments are intended for every scientist. They, as much as anyone, have a vested interested in the mass communication of their field. It can and will have an impact on their careers. If evolution is seen as a marginal topic (which it absolutely and truly is in some places now, much more than ten years ago) they will lose their support. And I hate the idea that I could come off as an alarmist with this, but I've already gotten some doses of what I'm talking about in terms of evolution being marginalized. One major university (which shall go unnamed) has gone cold on plans to screen the film. A friend at that university was all excited about a possible screening two months ago, but then he called back and said, "All of the faculty want to see it, but the administration has asked me, simply as a favor to them, to not have it on campus -- they don't want to risk offending our Christian donors" (even though I don't think the film offends anyone, its just the entire controversial topic that worries administrators).
In the film Tom Givnish talks about NSF asking evolutionists to avoid using the word "evolution" in their plain english summaries. And across the country lots of teachers at all levels are avoiding the subject of evolution just because they don't want to deal with controversy or upset students. There's a passive creeping element to this issue that every scientist should be thinking of.
On a different note that maybe makes my point clearer, I was a coral reef ecologist all through the 1980's, happily studying the world's coral reefs, and just blindly assuming (like the typical scientist you're talking about) that good people were doing a good job of protecting the resources I was studying. By the early 90's the damage to coral reefs began to become unavoidable, and by the late 90's coral reef biologists like my colleague in our Shifting Baselines project, Dr. Jeremy Jackson, felt he had to speak out before everything he had studied in the Caribbean disappeared.
And I think part of the feeling among us coral reef biologists of the 80's is, "Why wasn't somebody taking care of these resources to make sure this didn't happen?" And the answer is we should have been watching out for the reefs ourselves, given that they were the source of our livelihood. So I think I feel the same way about evolution and evolutionists. There are good people working hard to defend evolution, but obviously they are under attack, and science communication is not all it could be. The evolutionists have a voice. They should use it to strengthen the efforts of those involved in communications.
Lastly, regarding a SoCal screening, I think plans are coming together for a screening at Scripps Institute of Oceanography in La Jolla in early April. We'll post the details on our website, www.flockofdodos.com sometime next week.
Posted by: Randy Olson | February 17, 2006 12:56 PM
It's all interesting advice, and it makes sense, but...I'm looking at the opposition. One wildly successful example of media victory is the right-wing and their various organs, and if you look at what they put out, it's as if they've taken some of your advice and marched off 180° in the opposite direction. 1) Talking heads sitting around tables yelling at each other; 2) "Pinheads" and other outright slams of anyone to the left of Joe McCarthy; 8) Absolute humorlessness; 9) Repetition, repetition, repetition of a set of scripted talking points; 10) This is arguable depending on your sympathies, I suppose, but I find none of them at all sincere.
The Discovery Institute operationally ignores every one of your suggestions except #5 -- they spend money on communications. It's all they spend money on.
Now I suppose you could argue that scientists are so bad at everything that even a crippled, pathetic failure like the DI can beat us -- a 1 out of 10 trumps 0 out of 10, easy. But then I would argue back that throwing 10 difficult tasks at us is a distraction that's only going to make our job even harder, when we could make gains if we worked on just one of those things and did it well.
So, I'd ask you to prioritize. And also resolve some of those contradictions with things that we're seeing that work well in the media--because it sure looks to me like humility (#2), for example, is a loser.
Posted by: PZ Myers | February 17, 2006 2:45 PM
Randy,
Thanks much for this. The ten bullet points emphasize how far we have to go, but at the same time, how relatively straight-forward the path is. So much of communicating science is letting folks know just how much fun science is. The stories of the advances, dead-ends, jealousies, and passions behind scientific discoveries great and small are utterly compelling if we step off our pedestals loosen our ties, and just let 'er rip.
EO Wilson in a recent interview at the Edge, said "Ask the questions right from the beginning of the freshman class: What is the meaning of sex? Why do we have to die? Why do people grow old? What's the whole point of all this? You've got their attention. You talk about the scientific exploration of these issues and in order to understand them you have to understand something about the whole process of evolution and how the body works."
Instead we treat education (and seminars, which often have a general audience) as Copernicus treated his critics. "Astronomy is for astronomers" he said. Better to have a Galileo as a model, a fellow who enjoyed mixing it up, and wrote in a clear lucid prose with plenty of comedy.
I think the perfect laboratory for developing many of your ideas is the necessarily huge Intro Bio course at our major universities. These auditoriums full of students converge on 1 hour stage plays, complete with video, a sound system, and (with a remote microphone) Oprah-style audience participation. This often comes as quite a shock to freshmen majors and nonmajors who come from high school science classes that have more vocabulary than their French class and consist of memorizing and regurgitating facts and factoids on multiple choice tests. Moving beyond the "just the facts m'am" style of teaching, students find that science is exciting, relevant and fun.
Evolution is about deep deep time, the panorama of history, our ongoing death struggles with some parasites and our amicable living arrangements with others, why we have to have our wisdom teeth yanked, and the devils bargain life struck with oxygen. It is hard to conceive how we have managed to make it dull.
Posted by: Mike Kaspari | February 17, 2006 3:08 PM
I posted this comment over on Panda's Thumb, but is is relevant here also.
When you think about it, the ID crowd has it pretty easy. One hundred percent of their budget can go to PR. None of it has to go for research.
Those of us who have done research most of our lives have to deal with one hundred percent overhead costs, insufficient amounts for the research, with no PR money allowed. We may get some money to get research results published in peer-review journals or presented at conferences. Then there are the 12 to 18 hour days every day in the lab, or writing up results and going after new funding. None of the ID crowd has to do any of this.
The public is not familiar with the intense critiques that go on in the scientific community and are uncomfortable with it when they witness it. ID promoters put on a pretty face, smile a lot, and hand out candy-coated crap. Their public loves it and thinks that scientists are jealous, crabby, negative-thinking defenders of their precious territory.
Some of us do come across as being very unpleasant in public, and we need to be careful. The intense love and interest most of us have for our field doesn’t necessarily come across that way when we see something stupid being pawned off on unsuspecting citizens.
Posted by: Mike Elzinga | February 17, 2006 3:16 PM
Randy, these are great suggestons but PZ and others have apoint too, how do you compete with a bunch like the DI that spend the money on PR. My answer is to start (or use an existing)professional association that biolgists belong to (or better yet, start a new one that all US scientists, from any field, can join). The dues don't have to be high and are probably tax deductible. The purpose is to promoate and provide good PR for science. I am not talking about them publishing the latest papers but funding and encouraging professional and powerful presentations to reach different audiences. I don't know why scientists would be different than most intelligent hardworking professionals. They hire other professionals to do things outside their circle of competence.
Posted by: CanuckRob | February 17, 2006 3:33 PM
Randy:
Your comments on my own hero, SJG, hurt. I'm sad to hear him described as elitist and arrogant. I don't think the cricitism is fair, and I wonder if it was because he never condescended (as you advise). He assumed his readers were intelligent. Sometimes I had to reach, to reread, and even grab a dictionary, but it was always fun and always worth it.
-HS
Posted by: HS | February 17, 2006 3:52 PM
I think another twist on this is to point out that maybe one reason you found it so easy to list problems is that you've picked the obvious, including some problems that we're already well aware of. It's like having a general inspect the army and create lists of shortcomings -- they're too few in number, they don't have enough ammo, the new recruits are poorly trained -- and just declaring "fix those, and we'll win." Well, yeah. Finding weaknesses is easy. Declaring that the way to achieve victory is to be flawless in all matters is obvious.
What is more useful and far more difficult is to rattle off a list of strengths (I suspect science might have a few) and explain how those might be exploited in spite of deficiencies elsewhere to achieve that victory.
That's what we're looking for now. Telling scientists that they have to be witty and humorous and media-savvy and rich and less intellectual is nice (maybe we should also all have ponies, too, and hey, Very Large Breasts are always a plus), but it doesn't help. What we need are accurate assessments of what we do have, and what we can capitalize on.
Posted by: PZ Myers | February 17, 2006 4:09 PM
I beg to differ on your review of the pbs series. Yes, a few were a bit boring, but one of my favorites was one that talked about the changes in mammals as they adapted to the ocean:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/change/index.html
Several students in both classes commented how much they learned from the video. After showing 30 minutes of the 60-min program, one class begged me to show the rest. I made a deal, and they choose watching it over playing a review game before their test.
They learned a lot and loved it.
It might not fit the standards of a film critic, but neither would most of the stuff put out by Hollywood, but that doesn't mean it doesn't appeal to the masses.
Posted by: nelumbo | February 17, 2006 4:55 PM
Well ... so far this is a lot of fun. To begin with, its been really gratifying to see just about all the discussion of the Flock of Dodos film on blogs be about the communication of science, rather than the controversy over intelligent design. That's a good sign already -- that scientists know the disproving of intelligent design is a fairly simple issue that shouldn't have scored as much media attention as it has, and that they realize its much more just a symptom of a bigger current problem with communication.
And this is a very big problem. I spoke with a prominent scientist friend this morning who told me he met recently with Senator John McCain who said he is just plain angry over both the discrediting of global warming science that is going on, as well as the ineptitude of the science establishment to assert their authority. Personally, I brought this issue up in several of our panel discussions with the film and couldn't believe the sense of helplessness I heard from some major scientists. 60 Minutes is going to have a segment on the Hanson/NASA issue in a few weeks. Perhaps that will help validate the issue. For now, I can't believe we are living in a society that appears complacent over the idea of having the voice of public relations firms become as powerful as the science establishment (whatever that is, really).
So a few replies:
1) Prioritize - I would start with the attitude. Realize that every time you hear an evolutionist condescend, that person is doing a disservice. Its much easier said than done. Its counter-intuitive. I am the first to call people idiots and ignoramuses, etc. (as Givnish so generously voiced for me in the film). But there is a consequence to this. The second priority I would point to is #5 - Prioritization. In the past, communication was given a very low priority. I don't know that many people ever envisioned a potential cost to this. But now the cost is here, in the form of, "The Republican War on Science," as Chris Mooney so aptly titled it. And what exactly is this "war". Are there bullets flying and dead bodies in the science world? No. It is a war of rhetoric and communication. The media world has become a major playing field. And yes, it costs a lot of money to fight this war, and it may seem wasteful, but you have to realize we don't live in the United States of Intellectuals. We live in a society with a great deal of noise and inefficiency. This is the mistake the Kerry campaign made -- they thought that the facts about his war record would win out. But they didn't realize how inefficient mass communication is today. Its a tough struggle, but the science world has plenty of resources with which to engage.
2) Intro Classes - I couldn't agree more. I personally think that freshmen in ALL disciplines should be exposed to the incredible common sense aspects of evolution and natural selection. And this is where Stephen Jay Gould (who I'll deal with in #4) was so tremendous. So many of his essays showed the relevance of evolutionary theory to daily life. His baseball essays to begin with -- the idea that you could use a simple understanding of stabilizing selection to figure out why there are no more 400 batters was wonderful. And punctuated equilibria -- the idea that so much of the world is characterized by periods of stasis, punctuated by short periods of drastic change -- I'm always trying to explain to students that their lives are the same way -- a few years of stability in high school, then drastic change to college, then a few years of stability, then more change. These are simple, common sense applications of the basics of evolution theory that could be translated in a such a manner that they could actually help students make sense of the huge amount of change they are subjected to and have a hard time understanding. I even wrote an essay in film school in my Silent Cinema class about the parallels between adaptive radiation in the Pre-Cambrian and the early experiments with silent film, many of which were creative dead ends.
Evolution is about change, and change is just about the most difficult concept for all people to comprehend. I've spent the past four years running our Shifting Baselines Ocean Media Project that is built all around this idea -- trying to comprehend change in space and time and not lose track of perspectives. And by the way, everyone should read Alexander Stille's great book, "The Future of the Past," which is all about change and information overload.
3) Research vs. Communication - from the beginning of time, science has consisted of two things -- doing research, then communicating what you've done. We all know that one without the other leads to a waste of time. Gregor Mendel and Alexander Fleming are just two of many examples of great science that wasn't communicated effectively and thus went unnoticed for a long time. Scientists, of course, are somewhat responsible for both in that they have to at least write papers and give technical talks. But at the higher level we divide these tasks into specialists. There are lots of science communications specialists. Some of them do a tremendous job (like Carl Zimmer), but lots of others, not so much. And again, as I said in the previous comments, I'm not asking research scientists to step out of the lab and take speech classes. I'm asking them to take a look at the way their field gets communicated to the broad audience, and if they think its less than ideal, to make their opinions known.
4) Stephen Jay Gould - Again, I am very sorry to say this. He was tremendous in his time. His essays will live on forever. And it deeply disappoints me to hear students today say they don't like his writings. But they do say this, and its not just a few students. So everybody needs to wake up to this. The world has changed. What worked for mass communication of science in 1980 doesn't necessarily work in 2006. The audience has changed. The audience has changed. The audience has changed. How many times can I say it. And the situation is not impossible. I staged a poker game in the film which feels like something from the tv show Big Brother as two of the guys get into a spat. At the screenings you can feel the audience leaning in -- "ooh, suddenly this is interesting." Its interesting because there's a tiny level of unpredictability to it. Its not like a famous scientist sitting in his office pontificating about molecules. Suddenly sparks are flying. And feel free to denigrate it as cheap entertainment or whatever. The main point is that the audience has changed and they just aren't willing to sit and watch the same old thing. All this means is that there are new, exciting opportunities to reach them. BUT those new pathways of communication will not be discovered without innovation and taking some chances.
5) Telling Scientists to be Charismatic -- again, that's not what I'm saying. I'm telling scientists to tell the science communicators they need to be more charismatic (and if you want to get angry and tell me I'm a lousy science communicator because I'm spoiling everyone's fun by raising these points you're welcome to). There are indeed some good spokespersons out there for science, and they don't even have to be celebrities. There are ways to find these characters and groom them for their roles in communication, but I don't see that going on right now. So again, finally, the biggest suggestion I am making is for greater innovation and exploration in new ways to communicate science. Not a total revamping of the system, just a realization that there is a lack of diversity of approaches.
Posted by: Randy Olson | February 17, 2006 5:50 PM
I'm about to devote one hour of my freshman Biology course to creationism and intelligent design. I've decided to do it because we university faculty need to take responsibility for educating the science teachers and health professionals that the general public gets their scientific education from.
I've never done this before and don't know of anyone else who has, so I'm having to develop my approaches and ideas from scratch. Are there any resources for doing this? Has anyone put lecture notes for a class like this online? I've read all the standard stuff (e.g. what's at the NCSE site), but haven't found anything very appropriate for my audience. (email me with ideas please)
I think my approach will be to present ID and creationism as part of a massive "war on biology" being mounted primarily by the Christian churches and their affiliates. (Yes, the war is explicitly directed only at evolutionary biology, but evolution is the foundation of all biology, so it's really a war on biology.) I'm not going to try to convince them that ID is wrong. Instead I'll simply explain to them that we need to defend biology against misinterpretation by those with non-scientific motivations.
Posted by: Rosie Redfield | February 17, 2006 6:02 PM
As PZ said, I think that a lot of the suggestions sound like good ideas, but they're not what has succeeded politically to date. It may be that folks here in the US aren't quite grown up enough to appreciate civility.
Also, if we start calling ourselves "evolutionists", we've given away one battle. People who believe in a round earth don't call themselves 'round earthers'--instead the lowbrows are called 'flat earthers.' It should be the same way with evolution: act like you assume it's the default view, and that only the other side needs a special label. Or if you must use a label, use something more general, like 'reality-based coalition.'
Posted by: Bill | February 17, 2006 6:09 PM
Rosie--we're teaching it for the first time this year, too. The syllabus for our intro class has some links -- in that section, we start by teaching them basic facts of taxonomy and biodiversity, then give them a simple introduction to the concepts of evolutionary biology, and in the third week I give them a lecture on creationism. I emphasize the strengths of the biological evidence and confront the common fallacies of creationism and ID head-on, rebutting a set of their claims directly.
We're also using the National Academies of Science book, Science and Creationism, as standard reading. It's short and to the point.
Posted by: PZ Myers | February 17, 2006 6:26 PM
I disagree with the notion that understanding your audience and pitching ideas in a way that your audience understands them is somehow "been there, done that, didn't work". Its like the old saw of the professor saying "I taught them the material, they just didn't learn it." Well, operationally, he may want to reevaluate his definition of "taught".
It seems the first step in establishing communication is to show some empathy. Now I'm not talking about debating Johnson or Ham here, I'm talking about communicating with someone who has grown up equating evolution with "I came from Monkeys". The fact is a lot of folks are people of faith. They are our audience. And Randy is absolutely dead on about condescension: you talk down to anybody and communication is over.
Getting to Rosie's question, I teach in the buckle of the bible belt. And my first lecture in Intro Bio is on the different ways people have of knowing about the world (many of us are Ph. D.'s, right?). I break it up into instinct/intuition, authority (e.g., faith, and the teacher/student relationship) and science. We spend a lot of time thinking about how we know something is beautiful, how we know something is evil, and how we know something is factual. Fact is, we can't say "that's not science" unless we have some other categories. In those lectures we establish that in faith we trust someone and that is all the evidence we need, and in science we need evidence before we can possibly trust anything (and even then that trust is provisional). There are plenty of wonderful quotes from the Bible, Augustine, and the TaoDeChing that make for useful compare and contrast examples. Students also dig that in science folks are happy to be proved wrong, whereas in faith, to be wrong falls under the category of betrayal.
So this might not work for PZ, but if you lay the groundwork so that a person of faith is not immediately threatened by science then you can have a much more fruitful discussion. I don't get to IDC until the second week (after the Aristotle's chain of being, Paley's Natural Theology,Lamark and Darwin). By the time we get there, we see that IDC is Natural Theology without the courage of its convictions--a blatantly political sham that would disgust Paley. We turn the issue of fairness on them.
To summarize, I don't think this is about debating shills from the Discovery institute. This is about communicating with folks who may distrust you and don't know as much about the subject as you do. This is an opportunity to teach folks who are not graduate students in EEB but have learned what they have learned about biology from high school; U.S. high school.
We have a lot of work to do.
Posted by: Mike Kaspari | February 17, 2006 6:59 PM
Randy, I really think you're onto something with your suggestions. Especially attitude. I recently attended a student led evolution vs ID debate at the university where I work (in Canada) and the evolution side immediately started in with the condescending tone. While I could feel the better part of me cheering them on, it was obvious that greater than 50% of the audience had already tuned them out, and they hadn't even started. The ID side was all positive, God (or some designer) is involved in your biology etc., etc., and most people ate it up. It was obvious. There was no mention of why evolution is important or how you can learn more about it, and even if there was, the people that needed to hear that message stopped listening after 3 minutes (at least to the evolution side).
Evolution vs. ID is just one example of a growing problem. More and more people don't understand science and more importantly, they don't understand why it is even important for their daily lives. Far too many people are intimidated by science and tune out immediately when they are confronted by it, in any situation. The real way to deal with this is through elementary and secondary education, but there is a whole generation, or more, out there and working who already have this attitude engrained in them. We need to do more, and do it better, remembering that people don't have the viewpoints they do because they are stupid, but because they don't have the slightest idea what the mountain of evidence that supports our scientific viewpoints are. They're not going to get it immediately, but if we start making a real effort, they will eventually (at least a portion).
Our very lives, as we know them, depend on it. We cannot rely on increases or even maintence of government support for grant funding forever without a concerted effort. The more the public understands about the importance of what we do the more they will clammer for increases and the more great minds will walk through our laboratory doors. I'd gladly lose my job because I'm no longer smart enough to compete with a new generation of top flight scientists but I can think of nothing sadder than continuing to watch support dwindle away to the point that there is no longer for us to pursue our ideas for the sake of the advancement of science (at least in this country).
Posted by: theodore price | February 17, 2006 7:17 PM
Your description surprises me: it's exactly the opposite of what I've experienced, and I've attended a lot of creationist/intelligent design talks. Every one resorts to similar attacks on science and scientists. There's the usual "evolution can't explain X, Y, and Z", which escalates into claims of conspiracy, and then we hear about those Darwinists trying to convert children to secular humanism and godless atheism, and before you know, it's Stalin and the Chinese and all the evils a good Christian has to face in this modern world. This has been true of everyone from small town ministers to the big guns of ID, like Phillip Johnson.
The biologists, on the other hand, talk about the evidence. I preface my talks by saying there's nothing in evolution that requires atheism (and I am a godless atheist, so I hate to do it), and even when I'm directly rebutting creationist claims, it's with scientific evidence, not an argument that they're stupid or that creationism leads to primal chaos.
The "condescending tone" always seems to come from the fact that at some point, you have to say that the creationists are wrong. It's hard to avoid that. That's what the 'debate' is all about, after all.
Posted by: PZ Myers | February 17, 2006 8:00 PM
I love the point about humility. Watching more scientists waive their credentials and shout back at the IDers does nothing for me or for advancing science. It's just more of what we all saw too much of in school.
Posted by: AndyS | February 17, 2006 8:08 PM
There really is a communication gap. I've been on both sides of the evolution debate growing up. Many of people in my family are fundamentalists. I've found very little in the way of effective materials that show high-detail photos of PRIMARY sources and evidence--in context--that might cause some doubt on their part. I was really disappointed in the recent National Geographic evolution issue for example. It was a typically scientific explanation.. but that isn't what is needed.
I understand that the mindset will deny and twist anything shown. That is why primary sources are so important. A drawing of a whale skeleton or horse sequence will be called a "fabrication" and the conversation stops there. A long detailed textual argument they will never read.
What I'm looking for is a book containing collection of high-resolution photos of key evidence for evolution (with brief but accurate explanations) that immediately grabs attention and makes one start asking questions about things like the age of the earth and human origins.
Such a book might include a guided tour of the geological column showing both large scale pictures with overlap from location to location and detailed pictures of a representative range of types of fossils that are found in each major layer.
It could include photos of the core samples that showing millions of varves (Both the entire chain of cores made and closeups along the chain).
It could have high resolution photos of embryos (such as people with "gills" and tails).
It could show geological anomolies that indicate slow processes such as tilting/erosion/more deposition. Pictures of sequences that alternate between ocean, river, desert, etc. and the representative fossils range from each or other pictoral evidence (ripples) that would give the reason why scientists think they come from those environments.
It could compare photos of core samples from current seabed being formed now with similar sequences in rock layers made by the same processes.
It could show detailed photos of the earbones and teeth etc. in the whale fossil sequence to show why scientists consider those fossils to be intermediate.
Etc. etc.
Does such a book / video exist? That is the kind of thing we need in this debate. Detailed PRIMARY evidence that one can point to and say "explain this" that doesn't take hours of reading to understand.
Looking forward to seeing the film!
Thanks for the great blog.
Posted by: SMgr | February 17, 2006 8:56 PM
PZ, the debate was between undergrads and grad students on the evolution side and mostly undergrads on the ID side. Making the point that creationist were wrong was the first thing out of the evolution side and was the thing that put off a good portion of the audience, or so it seemed to me. Of course, this is correct. Scientifically, the creatonists are wrong. The problem is that this distinction is not being made. They don't think that they are wrong, and a book they value more than what we are going to tell them supports that view. In my opinion, no one needs to tell them they are wrong. We need to concisely and convincingly present evidence for evolution to them and make them interested in learning more. We haven't had them since they were 8-13 to indoctrinate so they likely won't leave having changed their mind -- but -- if their interest is peaked they will learn more and we can make sure that good, attractive info is out there for them that is easily accessible (free of our jargon). I believe that if this can be done many will either eventually understand that evolution explains the diversity of life on this planet today or they will see evolution as the scientific explanation and creationism as their religious explanation (as many working and suceessful biologists do on a daily basis). Just my 2 cents.
Posted by: theodore price | February 17, 2006 10:11 PM
PZ wrote "The 'condescending tone' always seems to come from the fact that at some point, you have to say that the creationists are wrong."
You have it backwards. The success condition is that at some point the audience says the creationists are wrong. There are proven techniques for giving them that belief as well as the will to act. Humor. Socratic dialog. Snide questions that your opponent cannot answer. Frequent breaks to avoid overload. Music, sound, visual effects. Repetition. Suprise. Dramatic tension. Tangible examples. Insinuating a question so the audience can gleefully answer it themselves. Simple pictures and diagrams. Confidence. In other words, the standard techniques of social influence. This is a bunch of hairless monkeys, man! You're not keying data into a computer, you're competing with modern distra... ooh! shiny!
Likewise you have to avoid certain things. Subtleties that appear to be wrong at first glance. Long lists of facts, long chains of logic. Things that vicariously embarrass the audience. ('Why did he just call that nice old man a damn idiot?' the spectator asks to himself.) Using gold-plated $50 words that make no sense. Dithering; lack of confidence.
Posted by: Daniel Newby | February 17, 2006 10:19 PM
Carl, you should be particularly proud of your blog today. I think it really shows how valuable blogging can be. How would a film maker who does work regarding the sciences and has personal thoughts on how those sciences can be better presented to a mass audience, be able to have a unplanned discourse with various scientists/teachers on a Friday afternoon? Of course, you have to put up with the occasional layman popping in and commenting (ahem)... but it's been valuable to us as well. I really appreciate the words of Mike Kaspari (among others who echoed a similar point)"The fact is a lot of folks are people of faith. They are our audience. And Randy is absolutely dead on about condescension: you talk down to anybody and communication is over".
I really enjoy PZ - because he says what I agree with. I cheer on his rants the same way I cheered for Sugar Ray Leonard when he was dancing around an opponent, peppering his face and body with shots that came out of nowhere, and for which there was little defense. But this isn't boxing. And while I personally like PZ, I would wager he has never changed a single mind. I don't expect him to change. He shouldn't. What he does has great value. But others who are not so inclined need to approach this a different way, because there is definitely a place for it.
Most of the folks in my social circle are "true believers". If we got into a discussion about evolution and I called them a moron or an "IDiot", it would be the last time they spoke to me. First of all, I'd be wrong. Many over them are more intellectually tuned-in than I am. If I simply tell them what I have learned over the years and encourage them that they too should look into it (offering suggested reading and science programs), that their personal faith is not at stake, and that on some level they can reconcile the two (though I admit to them that it would indeed require them relinguishing a literal interpretation of biblical verses), then occasionally I make some headway.
Anyway, this is wonderful stuff and I too would like to know the answer to the question from RandyS - "Does such a book / video exist? That is the kind of thing we need in this debate. Detailed PRIMARY evidence that one can point to and say "explain this" that doesn't take hours of reading to understand".
Posted by: john | February 17, 2006 10:41 PM
Wow, I was really surprised to read Randy's comments on the PBS Evolution series. I thought the series was great! I think there is a need and a market for more concise presentation of evolutionary science, but the PBS series provided much-needed meat; there is a segment of the viewing public which can actually sit still for a whole hour and pay attention to people talking about a complex topic.
Posted by: FastEddie | February 17, 2006 11:59 PM
The point of such a book/video would not be to argue, convince, or prove. The point would be to present evidence in a form that 1) is least easily dismissed 2) engages curiousity and wonder and 3) encourages doubt about what they may have been told about 4000 year old floods, etc. directly from the primary evidence. 4) keeps it SIMPLE 5) demonstrates ways people can be on the look-out for such evidence themselves in their own lives (e.g. roadcuts?)
The DI and other creationist sources are very good at spreading doubt without evidence. We need to get a lot better at spreading doubt WITH evidence.
Posted by: SMgr | February 18, 2006 12:09 AM
I have my best successes if I listen to my wife first.
Posted by: Mike Elzinga | February 18, 2006 2:06 AM
Sorry, but "improving communication" is such a vague goal as to be useless. My summary of what each point is asking:
1) Do not be "dull and uninspiring" (I agree, but hard to do)
2) Be sympathetic (sympathetic to what? this is a slippery slope to pandering)
3) Be concise (agreed)
4) Be like television (wtf? no way!)
5) Put more resources into this type of communication (no - let the scientists do science and don't cut the resources for science further)
6) Learn to act (see #5)
7) (I cant figure out what this has to do with improving communication)
8) Be humourous (but not in a way where it contradicts #2, #3, & #4?!!)
9) Appear spontaneous and unscripted (pandering again, and dont contradict all the other suggestions)
10) Appear sincere (and dont contradict all other suggestions)
My take on this? Olson has a unique and interesting perspective that science can learn from, but it's not refined enough yet to follow up on (or make much sense of yet), but it certainly comes across as interesting communication when you don't think about it for any length of time. (And that's the problem).
Posted by: Ron Zeno | February 18, 2006 10:58 AM
Wow, too many messages since yesterday! But here are some comments and resources that address at least some of the questions here.
Let me start by establishing my credentials, and hopefully my credibility (since I don't have a blog of my own!). I have coordinated an intro bio course (majors and non-majors) at Kansas State University (Manhattan KS) every fall for the last 8 years. That course enrolls 700-800 students, but we teach it quite differently than most places, using a studio format. Write me if you want those details. We teach evolution in the first unit, since it is the foundation of biological science, and we keep mentioning it all through the semester. As a result of this assignment I have had many students in my office discussing their views of evolution; I don't know if I have "heard it all", but I might be getting close. I also participate in public forums discussing this topic, so I have some experience talking to the "general public" about ID/evolution. In fact, at the forum where I gave the introductory talk last Wednesday, the 100 or so attendants included about a dozen students from the local Christian school.
For Rosie and PZ - you are not on your own. Craig Nelson, a biology professor at Indiana University, has lots of ideas about how to take advantage of student misconceptions in talking and teaching about evolution. Just Google Craig Nelson Evolution and follow some links
For SMgr, who wants a book or video with lots of "primary evidence" to help convince folks about the validity of evolution. There is no resource like that, nor will there ever be. Think about it. The opposition can pick at thousands of factoids, and you will never know what to expect next. Sure, there are a few "usual suspects", but one thing you learn quickly when you engage the general public on this topic is that there is no way to predict all the things that you will need to know in order to answer their questions. One excellent primer is a Scientific American article from 2002, "Fifteen answers to creationist nonsense" (available on our course website at http://www.ksu.edu/biology/pob/wackononsense.pdf ). But please accept the fact that as long as we allow the opposition to frame the debate on their terms, picking at whatever factoid they find unclear, you can't get a resources like you want.
But more importantly, facts are not enough. Most of the dialogues that I have with KSU students are not a search for primary evidence, but rather a search for a way to get past the misconceptions, the propaganda, and the false dichotomy that "you can either believe in evolution or you can believe in God." You will get some students who refuse to listen at all, apparently believing that they will go to hell if they allow themselves to even hear about the other side. But most are simply victims of the false dichotomy, and so the way to reach them is with logic and critical thinking, not with primary evidence (which they are incapable of interpreting anyway). They will tell you that all scientists are atheists, for example, and you can gently ask them how many scientists they know. By probing what they know and how they know it, you can avoid the trap of trying to explain science that you may not understand (biologists like myself may not know much about sedimentology!). Most of all, you can convince them that they don't have to make a choice between science and god. That doesn't require primary evidence, but it does require patient listening. You won't reach all of them, but even in those cases you might spark a bit of critical thinking.
Which brings me to the most important point that appears sporadically in these blog comments. We are not just talking about anti-evolutionary thinking, we are really talking about anti-intellectualism. This has a long history in America, dating back to at least Tocqueville's time, but seems to be gaining ground. That comes not only from the conservative right, wishing to take us back to a time when there were no intellectuals outside the Church, but also from the post-modernist left, whose obsession with "other ways of knowing" makes them suspicious of science. It is very hard to use facts or primary evidence to reach someone who is automatically suspicious of science, and basically just suspicious of intellectual authority. So we need to be spontaneous, or charismatic, or make movies rather than talk about ideas. Yeah, we sure do have a lot of work to do... Will Rogers may have said it best: "There's only one thing that will kill the movies, and that's education."
Posted by: Dave Rintoul | February 18, 2006 11:16 AM
Why is this problem limited to biological evolution? Why no to, say, quantum physics and relativity?
Surely WHY there is any problem with bio. evo. is also worth addressing!
Posted by: Pete K | February 18, 2006 11:17 AM
Dave R,
Thanks for your excellent post and experience in this area. I particularly liked your point about anti-intellectualism.
> The opposition can pick at thousands of factoids,
Understood. I'm not saying that the kind of book I am describing is a cure-all. But it is very frustrating that most sources of information on evolution contain hand-drawings and artist conceptions rather than high quality photographs. These are instant conversation killers. "15 Answers" while a great read suffers from the same problem. Drawings. Graphs. And lots of text. It would be instantly dismissed. It won't be read.
If the text of a book talks about about the unique S-shape of the whale ear, I want to see a high quality picture of it in all of the skulls found, not a hand-drawing or just text describing it. That has no weight at all with this audience.
I am looking for high-quality material that can raise questions/doubts and be understood within a few seconds. Large, high quality photos would be preferred.
There is no silver-bullet, but I think there is a place for material like this and I have not been able to find what I'm looking for. It may not appeal to intellectuals to make such materials because it would not a logical argument. In a way, that is the point about the communication gap: we need to provide materials that address the issue in terms other than logical, textual argument.
We need a larger spectrum of materials.
Again, thanks for your response.
Posted by: SMgr | February 18, 2006 12:32 PM
As a conservation professional who does not work in Academia, I find this dialog fascinating. A fundamental tenant of conservation is that people do not preserve what they do not value. People do not value what they do not understand, directly benefit from or find personally appealing. And cold hard facts alone do not trump emotion, as this discussion of evolutionary science and intelligent design clearly demonstrates.
I would suggest that there are legitimate and highly effective contemporary examples of "popular science" - as opposed to academic publications - that effectively communicate evolutionary concepts to a wide audience. Walk into any airport bookstore- as I did in Atlanta recently- and you'll find large displays of Jared Diamond's Collapse alongside the standard blockbuster paperbacks. Less well publicized but equally engaging is Tim Flannery's The Eternal Frontier, and I can't begin to count how many landowners in the Northeast have been captivated by copies of Tom Wessell's Reading the Forested Landscape and the new eyes it has given them to see their natural surroundings and the legacy of natural disturbance and past land use on our woodlands.
I appreciate there is some discomfort in academic circles about the legitimacy of popular science, and popular hisory for that matter. The works I noted above are not junk science, nor do they dumb down important and complex ecological concepts. Rather, they capture our imaginations, tell stories that hold our attention and provide new understandings of our ecological place and time. You may not agree with everything presented in such popular works - I take issue with the methodology used in SJG's The Mismeasure of Man- but there is no arguing with the way they effectively communicate to a large audience that needs to be engaged with issues that will play out beyond their lifespans but are impacted by their choices today.
Posted by: Tim Abbott | February 18, 2006 1:04 PM
My credentials are a little different form most of you. I teach 7th grade life science in a rural Title 1 school in North Florida. Pretty conservative area. I do have a better than average background in biology and have always been fascinated by evolution and read a lot on the subject(Gould is hard to read!). I also spent 8 weeks one summer in a biotech lab at UF.
I have also been influenced by Miller and Levine who spoke at the Florida Science Teachers conference last Fall. They are excellent communicators and like to talk to teachers. (look at their website with some good slide shows on ID versus Evolution http://millerandlevine.com/talks/index.html )So we had some great discussions. They also were involved in the PBS series and I ended up using the session on the Evolutionary Arms Race in my classroom this Fall and the 12 and 13 year olds loved the film and were fascinate by the sequences on TB and the Russian prison system.
I agree with many of the comments on debating ID versus Evolution, especially the fact that it is a false dichotomy. Many scientists Understand evolution and use it as a tool and have Beliefs that they would never wish to subject to the critical process of science (and then have to discard if they continue with the process).
One recommnedation of Miller is to start with ecology and then teach evolution because the ecological principals help place evolution in a more understandable context. I teach ecology first semester and also spend the first 9 weeks of the year teaching and practicing the scientific method. So when we come to evolution at the end of that semester my students can understand me when I describe science as a tool that we use as long as we don't find a better one, but a tool that helps us survive (I use the analogy of a hammer you use to build a house to withstand a coming hurricane, and then ask if you will keep the old claw hammer or discard it for a nail gun with the storm rapiidly approaching). we also discuss the role of belief in deciding how you use the hammer and what kind of life you live in that house.
Many of these children come from homes and churches that ar part of the ID movement and they deserve our respect and support as we try to lead them out of the false dichotomy toward an understanding of how science searches for the truth and protects us.
I use viral and microbial change examples to explain the concepts of natural selection and to illustrate how evolution forms the basis of vaccine production and biotechnology. These are both less threatening and also good examples of how our survival may depend on using good science.
But none of the facts will get across or mean anything to our audience if they are threatened by them and feel a lack of respect for their beliefs from me or you. These are skills that teachers in secondary school and in college undergraduate classes can bring to the table. I think a collaboration between teachers and scientists might be very valuable on this subject. We have the communication skills you need and you have the knowledge that we need to get our k-16 population better educated about science.
I belong to Florida Citizens for Science and am working on bringing more secondary teachers into the organization which is mostly scientists right now. There is a network of state organizations out there and I think it is important to bring the teachers into them.
Posted by: Mary | February 18, 2006 1:32 PM
I am no marketing expert (my training is engineering), but essentially what I am talking about are materials that get the _attention_ and peak the _interest_ of the pre-logical mindset. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDA_(marketing).
Until there is _desire_ to understand more, there will be no effort expended to read and understand detailed, mainly textual scientific accounts. Especially accounts that are obviously derisive of one's own position (such as a title like: "Creationist Nonsense"). Until that point, such arguments are largely a waste of time.
As an engineer and scientist-wannabe, it bugs me that the human brain has to work this way, but that appears to be reality. Yep, its marketing. Eeeeeeeuuuww =)
Posted by: SMgr | February 18, 2006 2:03 PM
I guess I am a bit confused about the audience/target for the book/video that SMgr desires. In the first comment SMgr writes:
"Many of people in my family are fundamentalists. I've found very little in the way of effective materials that show high-detail photos of PRIMARY sources and evidence--in context--that might cause some doubt on their part."
A later clarification reads:
"The point of such a book/video would not be to argue, convince, or prove. The point would be to present evidence in a form that 1) is least easily dismissed 2) engages curiousity and wonder and 3) encourages doubt about what they may have been told about 4000 year old floods, etc. directly from the primary evidence. 4) keeps it SIMPLE 5) demonstrates ways people can be on the look-out for such evidence themselves in their own lives (e.g. roadcuts?)"
But the latest message I find:
"I am no marketing expert (my training is engineering), but essentially what I am talking about are materials that get the _attention_ and peak the _interest_ of the pre-logical mindset."
I am not sure about the "pre-logical mindset", and it may indeed describe some of my relatives. But I'll assume that we really are talking, as the first two comments imply, about folks (grown up or adolescent) who are old enough and educated enough to be able to question. and also understand the answers. If that is the case, I still don't think, along with Mary, that facts are the best ammunition at the outset.
The reality is that in almost every case, such questioning (e.g. "Show me some transitional fossils") just does not come from a deep-seated curiosity about the details of evolution, paleontology, etc. There is a deeper source. Nobody is asking you for a cogent explanation of how a transistor works; they just accept that sort of science, plug in their iPod and go about their business. Why is that? Because no authority figure in a Sunday School has told them, during their pre-logical age, that the science behind iPods threaten their immortal soul. So going along with that framing of the debate, as I noted before, just means that you will never run out of questions from folks like that. It gets exhausting once you realize that there will be no end to that sort of question!
As Mary notes, you need to short-circuit this strategy and go to the SOURCE of the questions. That would be an attempt to get them to think about the assumptions that underlie their belief that evolution threatens their immortal soul. Ask "Why do you think that all scientists are atheists? Why do you think that you cannot believe in god and accept the fact of evolution?" Combat that false dichotomy successfully, and then you can talk about the real facts, elicit the necessary curiosity, and make some progress in science education. But a book of "evidence" for evolutionary arcana is not a good first step, IMHO. Sure, I'd like to see it, for my own personal curiosity, but I just don't think it would be a useful pedagogical tool.
Posted by: Dave Rintoul | February 18, 2006 4:42 PM
1. I worked on the PBS Evolution series: I begged to work on it. But you're right. It was dull. But you need to do a lot more than say that. You need to tell us how to do a large series on a complex subject like evolution.
2. I'm with PZ on attitude. Maybe someone should be polite to the IDiots but you fail to make a case. I agree: calling one's opponents silly names doesn't get you anywhere to onlookers. But when it comes to creationists the solution is not to be more polite. The solution is to refuse even further to take them seriously. The solution is to pile on the vitriol and ridicule and laugh them back into the margins of American politics, where they belong.
They are morons. And they are dangerous. You get nowhere being polite. You give them status they don't deserve.
3. Yes to electronic communication with a big caveat. Compared to print, electronic media, including computers, are in a primitive state. If you really want to understand science, you have to do science. And you have to read science. And science writing must improve.
4. There is a difference between using humor and lightening up. Any humor used needs to avoid self-deprecation. The battle over IDIocy was dead serious. There is nothing to be gained in arguments with IDiots by poking fun at yourself or science.
5. Concision, yes. But some ideas take time and long explanation. So your real point is be concise, even when you have to take your time.
Posted by: tristero | February 18, 2006 5:55 PM
Thanks to all of you for one of the more interesting and thoughtful discussions I have seen on this issue. This discussion has focused on communication, one of several points that Randy makes in the movie and I agree with him; the lack or inability to communicate is probably one of the leading causes of dysfunction within the human condition. It is my observation of these discussions that there are a lot of different types of communication that are discussed and we tend to jump between them. Education is one and another is marketing.
I am somewhat cynical about marketing because my experience is that it seems like the point of this kind of communication is to offer me the opportunity of more and better sex if I “buy†the marketers point of view. I am hoping that scientists do not engage in this unless they can deliverer better then my toothpaste. The marketing around ID/evolution is that if you buy the ID point of view it will save your soul and most likely society as a whole.
Education is distinctly different and that conversation is distinctly different with different developmental levels; adults, K-12 school children, University students. It is in K-12 education that educators strive for “science for all Americans†and that the voice of science is reaching the large majority of citizens through science educators who are not always scientists. Do not read that as a problem â€" there are many examples of outstanding science education programs from across the county. I am trying to make the point that where people learn about science and engage in science matters and that the developmental levels of the people involved in the conversation is critical. The education level also matters since only a third of the U.S. population has Bachelor's degrees and even the conversations with undergraduates and graduate students needs to be handled differently. Modern marketing and education for the general public are (in my opinion) polar opposite forms of communication; with each form of communication having it own set of issues and conditions to be effective. One size does not fit all.
One point about communication in the film seems to be missing from these discussions. In the film, Randy very effectively eliminates ID as science and supports scientific research and evolutionary biology. How does he do it? He does not present laundry lists of evidence, pro and con, and yet by the end of the film it is pretty clear. Education al all levels is a specific form of communication and I am hoping we (scientists and science educators) can learn from the film and these discussion, how we can more effectively supporting learning and understanding.
Also note I did not take Randy's advice about humor - well until now. Do you know how many southern Californians it takes to change a light bulb? Fourteen - one to do it and thirteen to share in the experience.
For those of you wanting a book (and since we are on Carl's blog) I would suggest you check out his Evolution: the triumph of an idea book. While is it the companion to the PBS series it is different and really very good.
Posted by: Steven Case | February 18, 2006 6:20 PM
Wow. Such great stuff.
Let me start with SMgr request for a basic book with lots of interesting, clear pictures, simple, yet overwhelming. And Dave Rintoul's objection that you are just presenting "factoids" that you will endlessly receive questions about.
Yes. But you, and I and all supporters of evolution who bother to have these discussions with people who reject evolution, get those endless questions anyway! We all know the 20 or so basic "clever" questions that your creationist friend or father-in-law will throw at you as soon as the discussion starts up. Not being a scientist or an educator I sometimes have an answer, and sometimes have to say - "there IS an answer, I'll get for you and get back to you". But the point is, I know many people that I have a good enough relationship with that if I handed them a book like that and asked them to spend an hour or two examining it, they would. If they don't buy in, or still have endless questions (which by the way, the text COULD PREDICT and have answers for), at least I got them THINKING - and that's what SCIENCE is all about!
Evolution IS being marketed - some of it more effective than others. I haven't seen the PBS series, but there are tons of programs on PBS, BBC, the Animal Planet channel, Discovery Channel, National Geographic Channel, etc. that people REALLY DO watch! It's geared to a "average education" and the shows INVARIABLY make reference to evolution and, believe it or not, it DOES have an effect. Movies like Randy's is a form of marketing, and don't think a Creationist youth with just a slight sense of curiousity won't go to it if the movie itself has been marketed well. And again, if it doesn't alter the point of view, it will at least get him/her THINKING. I will guarantee you that formerly strong supporters of President Bush and his ideas on how to fight against terrorism started THINKING and changed their minds after seeing Farenheit 9/11.
Finally, I will say to all of you (except PZ, Richard Dawkins and few others) try to be more like good old Charles Darwin. When I first read Carl's review of the movie "Flock of Dodo's", I made a comment that is really relevant here. Please read it and think about it. You can read it here: http://evolutionarymiddleman.blogspot.com/2006/02/darwin-and-creationists.html
Posted by: john | February 18, 2006 11:12 PM
I've been a participant in these debates, in one way or another, for what seems like forever now, and I've come to one unmistakable conclusion that I think a lot of folks on the science side miss completely. This entire issue boils down to one thing, and one thing only: To a lot of the American public, evolution is absolutely unacceptable, no matter what evidence supports it or how it's presented. Evolution carries the necessary consequence that they are related to chimpanzees, and that Genesis cannot be read literally.
IOW, what we're trying to communicate to them is something many of them will NEVER accept, under any circumstances. You can have the best evidence packa