…and this is a 
In which I (partially) agree with Paul Nelson
Category: Creationism
Posted on: August 2, 2006 4:30 PM, by PZ Myers
It feels good to see the IDist crackpots beaten back a little bit in their bid to control the Kansas school board, and I think it is necessary to keep up the pressure and prevent them from getting a better grip on public school education. However, Paul Nelson actually has a point with his little parable. It's not the point he thinks he's making, but it's important to keep in mind anyway, and I'm going to dash some cold water on any sense of triumphalism on the pro-science side.
Once upon a time, there were a whole bunch of people who thought that what really mattered in thinking hard about design and evolution were state science standards. And school board elections.
Along came a 15 year old kid who loved science, read a lot, thought for herself, and generally saw the adults around her as missing the point. "As if," she said to the cat sleeping at her feet.
Then she smiled and went back to her web browsing.
The End.
Elections and courts are stop-gaps. They are ways to temporarily block trends from becoming entrenched in our social institutions, but as I tell everyone, all we have to do is lose one and we're screwed. We are on the losing side as long as our response consists of throwing up more and more sandbags in the face of a rising flood—we need to get to the source of our problems and work there, and if we put all our efforts into these legalisms and desperately close elections, we're being distracted from the work that's really essential.
This is a culture war. It's not being waged in courtrooms and ballot boxes, but in people's homes and churches and schools, it's going on in newsletters and editorial pages and web sites—it's going on in your neighborhood right now, and it's going on in every small town in Kansas despite the results of their latest election. Nothing has changed except that now creationists will redouble their efforts in the unobtrusive channels at the roots of culture.
Creationists may be scientifically illiterate and dogged with superstition, but they are sociologically cunning, and more closely tuned to community activism than we scientifically savvy folks typically are.
So the part that Nelson is right about is that, in the long term, the elections don't matter. What counts are the thoughts of 15 year old kids right now, and how their minds are being shaped, and I guarantee you that there are damn few of them who even knew there was a school board election going on. What are they reading? What are they being taught in school? What are their parents telling them, and what will they tell their kids 10-20 years from now? How will they vote when they're franchised in a few years?
The part that Nelson misses, though, is that these kids may love science, but he is part of an organization actively conspiring to corrupt and mislead them. The Discovery Institute and Nelson himself sow lies and call them 'science,' and if the poor girl in his parable is browsing their pseudoscientific fluff while thinking she's getting a nourishing dollop of good education, she's in trouble. She's going to suffer if she tries to take that early love of science to a higher level in college and grad school someday.
Of course, that matters too. The parable is actually making the chilling point that the school board elections don't matter, because they have other channels to abuse and limit and warp children's minds. And they are going to use them.
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
Comments
We need to preempt the fundies and get to the little kids before they do. I know it's going to be hard, since if they have fundie parents, the parents are going to get them first. Even if we get more things like the secular summer camp PZ mentioned, we still have to counteract the church camps that their parents will make them go to.
Posted by: King Aardvark | August 2, 2006 4:55 PM
I think there is a difference between wisdom and intelligence, what do you think PJ?
Posted by: peter | August 2, 2006 5:01 PM
Along came a 15 year old kid who loved science, read a lot, thought for herself, and generally saw the adults around her as missing the point. "As if," she said to the cat sleeping at her feet.
Then she smiled and went back to her web browsing.
Parents need to be warned about greasy predators on young brains who lurk on the internet and peddle sweet creationist candy. Sal Cordova comes immediately to mind.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | August 2, 2006 5:17 PM
I'm doing my part *pats Joey*
Posted by: Azkyroth | August 2, 2006 5:18 PM
Looks like television's no longer the place for broad influence (sorry, David Attenborough). From yesterday's paper and this web site,
--and television watching has dropped to 10.6 hours.
Posted by: thwaite | August 2, 2006 5:20 PM
Once upon a time, there were a whole bunch of people who thought that what really mattered in science was posing testably hypotheses that did not involve supernatural causation and arguments from ignorance.
Along came some self-identifying fundie morons who sucked at science, read the Bible a lot, who recited the scripts of ignorant preachers, and generally saw the scientists around them who were working hard and doing research as missing the point. "As if," they said to the shiny gold crosses clutched in their bloodless fists.
Then they smiled and went back to designing their web page and crafting anti-science propaganda for turning 15 year old girls into Liars for Jesus.
The End.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | August 2, 2006 5:24 PM
PZ
The parable is actually making the chilling point that the school board elections don't matter, because they have other channels to abuse and limit and warp children's minds. And they are going to use them.
Chilling and disgusting. And transparent in its shamelessness. What a bunch of sick psychos we are forced to deal with. Why can't these fundies spend all their time attacking architects or typewriter manufacturers?
Sigh.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | August 2, 2006 5:33 PM
Chemically speaking, teaching people about modern biology is energetically unfavorable since it takes work to overcome pre-existing ignorance. Worse, although the Creationists and ID people may not have been able to overtly promote their own ideas in the classroom, they have done very well indeed in hindering the serious teaching of evolution.
Posted by: Jim Harrison | August 2, 2006 5:40 PM
At the risk of stating the obvious, it's hard for my generation to relate to this dilemma because, while we were growing up in the 60's, the scientist was elevated to a godlike level, with his (it was almost always his in those days) authority supported by the extraordinary successes of the space program. These days kids don't necessarily even acknowledge that success, with the "Apollo hoax" lie continuing to gain traction. Kids seem to have a paradoxical skepticism of anything from an 'establishment' source with unwarranted credulity towards any huckster with a website.
World. Hell. Handbasket. Some assembly required. [/sweeping generalizations]
Posted by: moioci | August 2, 2006 5:46 PM
Beg to disagree but court decisions and school board elections are important forums for getting our ideas across to a broader audience. We obviously should never rely on one set of tactics and need to employ a full arsenal of frontal assaultsz on ID. But let's not minimize or disparage the role that Kitzmiller and the Kansas elections have played in galvanizing opposition to ID and mobilizing pro-science sentiment.
Posted by: DAE | August 2, 2006 5:54 PM
PZ,
In what sense are we "screwed" when we lose one? I mean, sure it's a setback and it's sad that a potentially large group of people will suffer in ignorance for some time because of a loss, but doesn't the Truth always win in the end?
We all know how slowly the scientific process progresses, there are inumerable examples. I would say that even religious superstition has been beaten back over the centuries. We now have separation of church and state. Galileos aren't imprisoned by the church anymore, leaders no longer rule by divine right, etc. I know counter-examples exist for all these things, but still...
The movement is never as fast as we progressive thinking types would like, but it does move in the right direction.
I ask this mainly as a discussion starter. I still think what you and others do is important and necessary, but in the end we are never really screwed, no?
Posted by: stand | August 2, 2006 5:55 PM
I just noticed The Gasbag putting in his 95 cents over at PT:
And yes, PZ-esque attacks on religion rarely do anything but antagonize those who ought to be cajoled into a more scientific attitude (not that PZ is doing much except preaching to a clique anyhow, but let us hope that his tactics are not used more generally at any time).
Of course, for a great many of us our skepticism towards religious myths and appreciation for science were inextricably linked as we grew up. So Gasbag's smears are -- once again -- lacking foundation.
Also, perhaps Gasbag and others who whine about the fact that Myers and Dawkins are "unleashed" ought to consider that the victories in Kitzmiller and now Kansas have occurred against the background of perhaps the most widespread publically disseminated anti-fundie "vitriol" that this country has ever observed.
So much for Gasbag's theory about "turning off" would-be voters. Perhaps Gasbag isn't aware that most Americans are not fundie morons who think that the world's scientists are engaged in an atheist-promoting conspiracy.
Speak without fear. Our country may be run by irrationational religious idiots, but most of us are not as stupid as George Bush when the facts are put plainly in front of us.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | August 2, 2006 5:57 PM
DAE
Beg to disagree but court decisions and school board elections are important forums for getting our ideas across to a broader audience.
Um, I agree that we should take advantage of the opportunity to talk about our victories in these contests, but it certainly should not be (and is not) our "strategy" to CREATE the conflicts simply to "get our ideas across to a broader audience." That would be insane.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | August 2, 2006 6:03 PM
doesn't the Truth always win in the end?
Funny thing but there were a lot of people who supported the Islamic Revolution in Iran because they thought that anything was better than the Shah. A lot of those people ended up fleeing Iran immediately to live in other countries, including the United States, and I don't know many people who are interested in moving back there.
Most of us don't live long enough to wait around for "the end." This unfortunate fact is what prevents the ID peddlers from "wasting their time" trying to do find evidence that would support their theory. Why should a scumbag like Paul Nelson bother with research when pure propaganda can get you just as much press in the newspapers, TV, radio, Internet, etc? There are young girls out there RIGHT NOW who can be enlisted to Lie for Jesus without spending ten years trying to get a paper published in a respectable journal.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | August 2, 2006 6:08 PM
Not too many, I'd agree. But I guess I have a fundamental belief that the Islamic regime in Iran cannot last because it is based on ignorant superstition. The fact that it may outlast me wouldn't deter me from attempting to hasten its fall, if I cared enough about Iran to do something.
I think it boils down to whether you can be satified with being part of the process or if you absolutely have to see end results. I think science conditions people to enjoy the process. Or maybe science attracts people who enjoy the process. I think many scientists work their entire careers on some aspect of their field that is never "resolved" (whatever that means). I'm thinking about scientists who worked decades on the Mars Observer probe only to see it, at what should have been the pinnacle of their career, crash into the surface of the planet. How does one go on in light of realities like this?
Posted by: stand | August 2, 2006 6:24 PM
I'm thinking about scientists who worked decades on the Mars Observer probe only to see it, at what should have been the pinnacle of their career, crash into the surface of the planet. How does one go on in light of realities like this?
Surely they learned a few things on the way to "touchdown". ;)
Posted by: Great White Wonder | August 2, 2006 6:34 PM
GWW, I think that is precisely my point! That's why I disagree with PZ's statement that we're "screwed" when we lose one battle. The battle against ignorance is just friggin' huge; there's no way any of us will be alive to see it through. Losses are a part of the process. So why even engage? Most people don't. You have to enjoy the process.
Posted by: stand | August 2, 2006 6:45 PM
Great White Wonder:
You should read beyond the first line of my comment. I never said it should be our "strategy" to CREATE the conflicts simply to "get our ideas across to a broader audience." You made that one up out of whole cloth. Somewhat troll-like in my opinion. What I said was "We obviously should never rely on one set of tactics and need to employ a full arsenal of frontal assaults on ID." I was making the point that these court decisions and election campaigns are important fronts in the battle and shouldn't be denigrated.
Posted by: DAE | August 2, 2006 6:49 PM
Turning to sociological indoctrination techniques sends the message that science isn't really different from the religious tripe that young people are spoon-fed -- it creates the impression that the science doesn't actually stand on its own merits, but in how effectively it can persuade and influence emotional responses.
Those techniques actively impair the development of proper thinking skills. Are you really sure that you want to avail yourself of them?
Posted by: Caledonian | August 2, 2006 6:56 PM
Oh well, one would expect twisting and lies from someone as stupid and vile as GWW. I don't think that he's ever written a post that's worth considering, only writing derivative BS and sucking up to those who prefer flogging atheism to promoting science.
He can only smear, not write a convincing or literate post. His fundamentalist mindset is an afront to anyone who takes free-thought seriously. And that's enough response to the one who has understandably been banned from numerous forums for only making personal and group attacks, while having nothing intelligent to add.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm
Posted by: Glen Davidson | August 2, 2006 6:56 PM
It's also interesting how that parable point's up Nelson's own awareness that his crusade is about brainwashing kids, not about the truth. These people just can't help letting their masks slip...
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 2, 2006 7:03 PM
PZ is right about it being a culture war and about it being fought behind sandbags. The creationists/IDers keep seizing the initiative and the rationalists are always on the defensive. What could turn that around would be some poor fundie kid finally seeing the stupidity and dishonesty of the fundie mind set (and such kids do exist) and deciding to sue the Bibbul College that taught her lies thereby negatively impacting her ability to get a good job. Hit 'em where it hurts them, in their holy wallets.
Posted by: CanuckRob | August 2, 2006 7:29 PM
I feel triumphant* but I take your dash of cold water much further--in the end I'm almost certain some compromise position will win. Why? The other side consists of religious fanatics. They don't know anything about evolution and they don't want to, and they won't listen if you try to teach them. At some point, with obscure enough language, obscure enough motives, and a sympathetic judge or two, their compromise will be deemed constitutional. I'd love to live in a completely secular society, but there are too many fanatics for that to be possible. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if a teach-the-controversy type position was the norm nationwide in a few years. And you know what? It's not going to make a damn bit of difference. 50% of the public already can't tell you why it's hot in the summer and cold in the winter. Creationism-lite in public schools isn't going to unpublish a single paper, undecode a single gene, or unperform a single experiment. Smart people will continue to believe in evolution, and researchers will continue to use it, and zealots will continue to talk smack about it, and the world will keep on spinning. Paul Nelson's a fuckin Moonie, you could waste the rest of your life arguing with him and all you'd have is a wasted life.
*I'm not triumphant because I think a decisive victory has been won, but because Casey Luskin and the Discovery Institute once again tried and failed, and I hate those guys.
Posted by: steve s | August 2, 2006 7:33 PM
DAE
What I said was "We obviously should never rely on one set of tactics and need to employ a full arsenal of frontal assaults on ID."
Yes but defending the Constitution isn't really a "tactic" for actively promoting science, is it? That is what you implied when you said that is was a great idea for getting our ideas across.
Please don't get me wrong, DAE: I would never suggest that we shouldn't file lawsuits against creationists who try to teach their crap in schools. But consider that less of a "tactic" or "strategy" than it is simply doing the MINIMUM that is necessary to keep anti-science and illegal preaching out of public schools.
PZ's point (I think) is that we need to do much much more that defend ourselves against fundies who are attacking us. Using our victories in those battles as rhetorical weapons to dissuade fundies from further obnoxious activities is common sense.
But more effort at promoting science and promoting skeptical rational thought generally would be great. How can it be that in 2006 I can still turn on the TV in the morning and see on a morning news show a story about a reincarnated WWII fighter pilot taken seriously?!?!?
A lawsuit to stop that garbage isn't going to work, nor is a school board election. But that kind of gargage is a part of the larger problem, I think.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | August 2, 2006 7:36 PM
I thought I'd link to what I actually wrote, though GWW did in fact include important caveats that belie his mean-spirited attack, within his quote(as in, I hardly suggested that PZ should shut up, I just don't see how his tactics would succeed as a general strategy--GWW isn't a very competent reader):
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/08/in_which_i_part.html#comment-116384
What I thought about after posting the earlier response is that Dawkins actually writes in a manner that I think agrees largely with my PT post. Here's Nature's paraphrase and quote of Dawkins:
Dawkins akcnowledges that, particularly in the United States, there might be tactical reasons for trying to get on with religious people. "That is a perfectly reasonable political stance, but it has nothing to do with the truth." "Genomics luminary weighs in on US faith debate." Nature v. 422 p. 115 13 July 2006.
Indeed. Not that I think PZ should censor himself, but has evolution ever won out in as heavily Xian a country as our own via scientists in general attacking religion? Dawkins is doing just fine these days, I believe, acting as atheistic outlier, while the general body of science mostly avoids antagonizing religion. Dawkins recognizes the realities of US politics, too.
I myself do not hide my own lack of religion, though I typically don't make a point of it (one problem with linking our presentation of evolution to the public with atheism--it's hard enough to get the science across to a poorly educated American public, while demonstrating the tendency of science to diminish religion requires a much higher degree of understanding among those pre-disposed to default to religion).
Not that GWW would be expected to understand nuance, including Dawkins' nuances. He calls me "Gasbag" because he reviles nuanced discussions of the issues, which he understands about as well as Dembski understands science. Not only does he fail to understand politics among the fundamentalists, he opposes such an understanding, seeing this all in terms of war-like tit-for-tat terms, rather than wishing to learn how to persuade.
I probably wouldn't have posted again, but I was able to find the Dawkins' quote from Nature and thought it would be only proper to show how an intelligent person like Dawkins thinks (I approve of Dawkins' other comments in the same piece), by contrast with GWW's senseless attacks against anyone with understanding. Now I likely am out of here, since there's little point in responding to one who is as reactionary in psychology as GWW is.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm
Posted by: Glen Davidson | August 2, 2006 7:45 PM
Still, polls show that in the US, creationism is correlated directly with age. Harris and People for the American Way both have polls showing that young people are among the most reliably pro-evolution American demographic. I can't link these polls because the spam filter's not letting me, so just search evolution poll age on Google; both of these results are on the first page.
Posted by: Alon Levy | August 2, 2006 7:48 PM
steve s
I feel triumphant* but I take your dash of cold water much further--in the end I'm almost certain some compromise position will win. Why? The other side consists of religious fanatics.
Much is true here. On the other hand, you never know what bizarre turn in history waits around the corner.
Some fundie nutcase might set off a bomb at the Cold Spring Harbor symposium. I suspect that would put a serious damper on public opinion of "intelligent design" and creation science. It's these sorts of historical events that tend to shape history in unpredictable ways.
That is why it is important for scientists -- as educated persons with an interest in an educated society -- to not shy away from political matters and to speak up when anti-science policies are forming under their feet. I would argue that this is at least important or more important than trying to actually teach scientific facts (especially scientific facts that are conceptually difficult to grasp) to lay people.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | August 2, 2006 7:49 PM
"The parable is actually making the chilling point that the school board elections don't matter, because they have other channels to abuse and limit and warp children's minds. And they are going to use them."
Indeed . . . but more, it's a sour-grapes statement: we tried to inject our beliefs into science class by taking over practical, productive, constructive organizations and processes - school board elections, crafting science standards - but that didn't work (so far), so poo on it! That stuff doesn't matter anyway!
A bit immature.
Posted by: Dan S. | August 2, 2006 7:51 PM
Has evolution ever won by compromising with religion? I know that 19th century Britain did not have the religious fundamentalists that the US has, and it certainly didn't have the anti-intellectual elites that the US is so proud of, but it was still a religious nation with an intellectual tradition that favored Lamarck and was hostile to Darwin.
Posted by: Alon Levy | August 2, 2006 7:52 PM
Not only does he fail to understand politics among the fundamentalists, he opposes such an understanding, seeing this all in terms of war-like tit-for-tat terms, rather than wishing to learn how to persuade.
Very inspiring. If I listen hard enough, I can hear the opening strains of "We Are the World."
Posted by: Great White Wonder | August 2, 2006 7:52 PM
Over at PT, Coin wrote:
I'm not sure more Saganesque pop science is the solution (having a few more Bill Nyes out there would help, but I don't think we need any more Dawkinses).
Here's a question for folks out there who are uncomfortable with the rhetoric of scientists who don't appreciate the marvelous benefits of mythology to the human condition: do you think that folks like Sagan and Dawkins are substantial CAUSES of fundamentalist lunacy in this country? i.e., do you think that any alleged spreading of fundamentalism in this country is due in substantial part to the rhetoric of folks like Sagan and Dawkins?
If so, could you provide some evidence to support that view? I'd be interested in seeing some. And no, the fact that atheists -- especially popular ones -- are continually berated by fundies is not particularly convincing. Nor is some anecdote by a fundie that he became a fundie because he or she read something by Richard Dawkins.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | August 2, 2006 8:19 PM
CNNOnline
Proponents of Kansas' latest standards contend they encourage open discussion.
"Students need to have an accurate assessment of the state of the facts in regard to Darwin's theory," said John West, a vice president for the Center for Science and Culture at the Seattle-based, anti-evolution Discovery Institute.
A reasonable goal for scientists by the end of 2007 would be to have the Discovery Insitute and all of its relatively high profile employees to be completely discredited as a pack of anti-SCIENCE scumbags, funded by a notorious Christian reconstructionist bigot.
This is a very reasonable goal but it would require diligence and focus. If scientists had organized and started such a project two years ago, it would probably already have been accomplished. Think about all the time that Ed Brayton wasted wondering if Casey Luskin was really a lying sack of shxt or not before he finally gave up and admitted the truth this year.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | August 2, 2006 8:28 PM
I am going to disagree a little with PZ and Paul Nelson, in that elections and court cases do matter- they matter a lot.
First, elctions reflect the "will of the electorate" (when that is they are not held in Florida, and are not countered by a political Supreme Court). But, in Kansas last night even the right wing backed away from lunacy in enough number to reduce the creationist margin to a "worse case" 6-4. Second, the Dover Pandas trial will exert tremendous influence among judges in all Federal Courts. Jones has marked ID with the flaming CD (creationist dogma), and I think that this will be a very powerful tool.
However, I can not imagine that this means that "We Won!" The Kansas exteremists are sill on the Board with 4 members. And, when Ken Ham can raise 25 million dollars to open a creationist museum, he can raise another 25 to buy off a lot of politicians. IDC might be a dead rat, but creationist fundamentalism is as alive as ever.
Posted by: Gary Hurd | August 2, 2006 9:20 PM
GWW:
"do you think that folks like Sagan and Dawkins are substantial CAUSES of fundamentalist lunacy in this country? i.e., do you think that any alleged spreading of fundamentalism in this country is due in substantial part to the rhetoric of folks like Sagan and Dawkins?"
I don't have any evidence to support the following statements. However, I wouldn't say they so much are causes of fundamentalism as they have helped cement the fundamentalist stance on evolution. They speak right into and confirm the fears that fundamentalists have--that the purpose of science is to disprove God. This is the fear and stereotype they hold towards scientists, and so Dawkins only confirms those fears and strengthens their resolve to oppose science. Seems to me if people on this side of the debate would understand what causes the opponent to entrench themselves, they would try a tactic that might not. It's needless.
Steve s:
"50% of the public already can't tell you why it's hot in the summer and cold in the winter. Creationism-lite in public schools isn't going to unpublish a single paper, undecode a single gene, or unperform a single experiment. Smart people will continue to believe in evolution, and researchers will continue to use it, and zealots will continue to talk smack about it, and the world will keep on spinning."
This is indeed a major part of the problem--the general public's ignorance of science. The battle lines here are very active, while (sadly) probably 75% of the population could care less.
Glen Davidson:
Thanks for clearing up your tirade towards GWW. Reading your 1st post, all I could think was "What the?" Now that I know you were "gasbag" I understand the bone you were picking with him.
Posted by: Squeaky | August 2, 2006 9:22 PM
I offer one distressing datapoint. I got a letter last week from _American Scholar_, the Phi Beta Kappa magazine. I was considering subscribing until I read the list of recent topics covered. They mentioned the 'debate between Darwinism and Creationism'. I recognize that even some well-meaning people don't know that Darwinism is not the right term. But from a magazine whose whole schtick is that it's an intellectual thang, that's ugly.
Posted by: JakeB | August 2, 2006 9:28 PM
FWIW, Nelson now has a part 2 to his fable. Something about the girl with scientific interests needing the classroom freedoms to read about pseudogenes, one of which was apparently discovered to have adaptive function after all. (ID-er's claim that this disproves evolution, since the 'junk' status of unadaptive pseudogenes had been an argument for evolution, demonstrating its historical legacies.) Confusing, yes - and written in very obscurantist way.
Posted by: thwaite | August 2, 2006 10:05 PM
This is total BS. The scientists like Dawkins haven't cemented anything. The fundies had their mind made up long before Dawkins came along. We need more people like Dawkins not less. If more and more people spoke and understood science as he does we wouldn't have the problems we have.
What we need are less fundies and I know a few who Dawkins straight tell it like it is style has helped move away from their fundyism in this area.
Being pussy won't help anyone.
Posted by: GH | August 2, 2006 10:10 PM
Alon Levy,
How DARE you rebut my most splendiferous hand-waving (and -wringing) with ACTUAL DATA! That is, like, SO below the friggin belt. Hmmph. Consider yourself admonished.
Posted by: moioci | August 2, 2006 10:13 PM
Squeaky
I don't have any evidence to support the following statements.
Don't worry, you're not alone. ;)
Seems to me if people on this side of the debate would understand what causes the opponent to entrench themselves, they would try a tactic that might not.
Other than lying to fundies to make them believe that science is the best thing that ever happened to their fxcked up religious beliefs, what "tactic" do you propose?
You might want to consider the possibility that "entrenching themselves" and "religious fundamentalism" go hand in hand, regardless of whether the topic is science, sex, abortion, or whatever other topic the fundy preachers are using to rally their charges.
The question that you need to ask yourself, Squeaky, is the same as that most Americans should ask themselves. Do you want to live in a society where atheists are allowed to express their opinions and explain the basis for those opinions and do so in places like the internet, in books on TV and on the radio, or do you want to live in a theocracy where religious dogma is given substantial weight in policy decisions?
Ignoring any issues of false dichotomy for the moment, which of the two alternatives would you prefer? And if you prefer the first, then how do you propose we get there from here without "entrenching" the fundies?
Posted by: Great White Wonder | August 2, 2006 10:15 PM
This is indeed a major part of the problem--the general public's ignorance of science.
This is too simple. The general public is ignorant of most things. I have a doctorate in molecular biology but I don't know diddly about geology. Or the history of the Etruscans.
But I have learned to smell pure bullcrap from a safe distance and most of that learning I taught myself from library books. For example, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, poltergeists, mind reading, telekinesis, UFOs, "miracle healing", creationism, etc. I don't remember being taught that stuff was bullcrap in school, nor do I remember my parents teaching me it was bullcrap. I figured it out by reading.
Now, I had access to a decent library with a selection of books that were the works of cranks and the works of scientists and I somehow figured out how to assess the quality of the claims and arguments. Luckily, I was not brainwashed too heavily by my parents to adopt/forbid certain thoughts for fear of eternal damnation. It was enough for them that I said a prayer when I went to bed and that prayer wasn't to the devil.
That was back in the early 1970s and I suspect the situation now is much worse because the propagandists who peddle creationism are much more sophisticated.
Scientists and educators would really be doing kids a favor by teaching kids passionately and vociferaously facts such as "CREATIONISM IS BULLSHIT" and "PEOPLE WHO CLAIM THE EARTH IS LESS THAN 1,000,000 YEARS OLD ARE LIARS OR NUTS" rather than trying to "educate them" about neutral selection and other details of evolutionary biology. The statements in quotes are indisputable facts. They are easy to remember. They will help kids figure out when a person down the road is credible or not.
If anyone has an argument against this "tactic" besides "someone's feelings will get hurt" I'd love to hear it because, frankly, I could care less about how some fundie liar "feels" when I call him/her on his bullshit.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | August 2, 2006 10:44 PM
PZ wrote:
There are some who think that the courts will always be there unaffected by such cultural trends, that somehow they will always make the right choices. I am not one of those people. You are quite right, this is cultural. When we win in the courts, this slows them down - legally. But if they can use it in the long-run as further evidence that modern society is stacked against their willful ignorance. (I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it as stupidity, mere ignorance or illiteracy - it is a deliberate, self-imposed ignorance which they seek to impose as a matter of law upon the rest of society.)
*
As I mentioned not too long ago, Great Britain is facing similar problems. Roger Stanyard has been frequently documenting such nuttiness at his blog:
http://360.yahoo.com/stanyardroger
Might be worth checking out. Hard to imagine it is happening over there.
*
But, hey, I figure this little victory in Kansas is still worth a toast...
Posted by: Tim | August 2, 2006 10:44 PM
Well, first off, I would say you don't frame the debate as religioun vs. science. It certainly would help matters if atheists who happen to be scientists didn't attack religion on the basis that they believe science disproves God. That is an unscientific argument, and one that should be avoided because you are confirming the exact stereotype that fundamentalists use to "rally the troops". It's one thing for an atheist scientist to say they have come to lack of belief in God because of science and quite another for that scientist to say that science disproves God. Religious fundamentalist often make the exact opposite argument--science proves God's existence (the ID stance). Both are unscientific claims, and both need to be treated as such.
I don't care what atheists believe or don't believe, and they are free to express their views. But don't frame the non-existance of God as a scientific argument. Likewise, if someone chooses to believe God created everything, fine with me. But again, don't frame it as a scientific argument.
"Other than lying to fundies to make them believe that science is the best thing that ever happened to their fxcked up religious beliefs, what "tactic" do you propose?"
The tactic I would propose is education. Someone else said 50% of Americans don't know why we have summer and winter. As someone who teaches those concepts in an intro physical geography course at a university, I'd say that number is a bit high, but not by much. Ignorance of science and the scientific method is at the heart of the issue. Why is it so easy for fundamentalists to use pseudo-scientific presentations like Kent Hovind's to convince people? It's manipulation to be sure, but it is only because people of all faiths and lack thereofs are completely ignorant of science. Any student paying attention in their intro science courses should be able argue Hovind down with no trouble at all, that's how basic his science is and how empty his arguments are. The thing is--he SOUNDS scientific with his big scientific words. And his arguments can sound pretty good to those who have little to no scientific background.
I think it is a mistake to dismiss all the fundamentalists as stupid and so entrenched they won't listen. I think it is a mistake to not make the effort to recognize exactly what they are afraid of so an approach that doesn't put them on the defensive might have some success. No, you won't change everyone's mind, but there is always someone who is willing to listen. You may not change any of the extremist's minds, but most people are in the middle, and their minds are far more open and changeable.
Look, all I can tell you is what worked for me. I was once a young earth creationist. When I really learned the science, I realized it was nothing to fear and that it did not and should not threaten my faith. Because my professors didn't write me off as just another religious fundamentalist, I was able to come to those understandings. Perhaps if I had been written off and marginalized and stereotyped, I would have gone in the opposite direction.
I am proposing NOMA. I am proposing supporting those Christians who are ACTUAL scientists to help bring science to the ignorant masses. I suggested that early on in my visits to this site, and PZ argued that people like Kenneth Miller are marginalized by religious fundamentalists and labeled "atheists". I know this true, but nevertheless, that doesn't mean my proposal is invalid, and it doesn't mean you shouldn't support them--it doesn't mean you give up on that tactic. I know if I had known of Miller back when I was struggling over the issue, I would have been very interested in what he had to say.
Posted by: Squeaky | August 2, 2006 10:57 PM
GWW
"The question that you need to ask yourself, Squeaky, is the same as that most Americans should ask themselves. Do you want to live in a society where atheists are allowed to express their opinions and explain the basis for those opinions and do so in places like the internet, in books on TV and on the radio, or do you want to live in a theocracy where religious dogma is given substantial weight in policy decisions?
Ignoring any issues of false dichotomy for the moment, which of the two alternatives would you prefer? And if you prefer the first, then how do you propose we get there from here without "entrenching" the fundies?"
I, personally, am very chagrined by religion in politics. I suggest Thomas and Dobson's (not James) book "Blinded by Might", but the gist of that book is expressed in
PZ's "How we can all get along" thread from a few days ago (sorry I'm barely computer literate, so I don't know how to link). Read the article on the Christian Fundamentalist pastor who refuses to preach politics in church. There is a growing movement (called the Emerging Church Movement) in Christianity that supports the views of this pastor.
Posted by: Squeaky | August 2, 2006 11:04 PM
GWW
"Now, I had access to a decent library with a selection of books that were the works of cranks and the works of scientists and I somehow figured out how to assess the quality of the claims and arguments. Luckily, I was not brainwashed too heavily by my parents to adopt/forbid certain thoughts for fear of eternal damnation. "
I just read your second post. I think you assume that everyone has the intellectual curiousity to do what you did. There is also an assumption that people are ignorant because their religious beliefs engourage ignorance. First of all, not everyone who is a theist is ignorant of science. Second of all, not everyone who is ignorant is a theist. Third of all, not everyone has the interest to learn what is bullcrap and what isn't in this world. I wish they did. And I wish they were more curious. And I wish they cared more about science. A high percentage of the students I teach (I teach intro courses) are not curious about science (or anything, in some cases), don't care about science or learning, and are literally petrified by science and math--not because of their religious beliefs, but because they think it is too hard for them to understand (Some of my professorial angst is coming through, for which I apologize >=)).
By the way, exactly why am I still at school? I'm going home.
Posted by: Squeaky | August 2, 2006 11:21 PM
It certainly would help matters if atheists who happen to be scientists didn't attack religion on the basis that they believe science disproves God.
That's not what atheists/scientists actually say, but it is how fundamentalists often percieve what they do say. A scientist (atheist or not) might say that data shows that the Earth is much older than 6000 years. Many a fundamentalist would interpret that statement as "that disproves God". That's a real communication barrier.
Posted by: Rick @ shrimp and grits | August 2, 2006 11:48 PM
If you're going to complain about unscientific arguments, save it for the religious. The criticism isn't that science disproves gods, but that religious arguments for gods are worthless, unscientific nonsense.
Posted by: PZ Myers![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 3, 2006 12:09 AM
PZ:
I grant the distinction, but it seems to me the use of emotive words like 'worthless' or 'nonsense' add nothing to the latter argument if those in turn hinge upon whether or not item X is 'scientific', or no.
I think the following formulation may be less emotionally-satisfying, but it would likely be more effective with a wider audience:
"The conclusion that virtually all scientists have drawn is not that science disproves religion, but that religious claims in and of themselves are of no value to the practice of science."
What do you think?
SH
Posted by: Scott Hatfield | August 3, 2006 1:37 AM
Our battle is not against ignorance - ignorance is curable.
Stupidity is not curable.
And deliberate lying for religious/political power, which is what the fundies both in the USA and here are doing....
Posted by: G. Tingey | August 3, 2006 5:04 AM
Glen:
"those who prefer flogging atheism to promoting science"
This is a misrepresentation of positions such a s PZ's and others. They do both equally which shows it is important to them. I think that is the position you can critizise.
As regards PZ I think he has explicitly abstained from politics, for better or for worse. There are many arguments for or against a political view on positions. But no one strong enough to imply one must go either way. PZ does what he is comfortable with, which in itself is a strong position.
GWW:
I didn't immediately realise who you called "The Gasbag", so I had to check. LOL! If nothing else, I agree that people who often write long comments (ahem!) tend to come over as pompous. Whatever the style, polarization, and amount of handwaving, I find interesting parts in both Glen's and your comments, though. Of course, agreeing to disagree is a perfectly sensible outcome, and one doesn't need to be gentlemanly in the process. On the contrary, it can cut the BS. Continue, by all means! :-)
Squeaky:
"I am proposing NOMA."
That would only work well if everyone believed in it, so it isn't a realistic proposal.
"I know if I had known of Miller back when I was struggling over the issue, I would have been very interested in what he had to say."
If you believe in NOMA, you shouldn't listen to Miller. He is arguing in books about his view on science and religion from a deistic creationism position using teleological and cosmological arguments. Amiel Rossow concludes: "Miller's position is not a tacit acceptance of the idea of the two nonoverlapping magisteria" ( http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Yin.cfm ).
I'm all for publically exposing creationism and its movements as the hurtful enterprizes they are. But I don't really see how we can go about that without antagonising people such as Miller in the process.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | August 3, 2006 5:59 AM
Logic alone is sufficient to demonstrate that the beings worshipped in most religious cannot exist. I suppose that explains the fundamentalist hostility to basic logic, then.
Posted by: Caledonian | August 3, 2006 9:08 AM
I can't say I have any idea who Paul Nelson is, I'll probably look it up. And I didn't know about what was happening in Kansas until I heard the results from this guy but that may well be a result of living across the pond although not wanting to make too fine a point of it, your desiese is spreading over here.
You're right, winning the battle is not winning the war, especially when the victory is in a courtroom that the children aren't aware of.
Keep up the good work, please.
Posted by: Paul "the tree" Carpenter | August 3, 2006 10:06 AM
This fifteen year old, the daughter of a molecular biologist and an electrophysiologist, reads Pharyngula every day, reads at least two newspapers every day, knows all the members of her district's school board, has learned about evolution and hundreds of other things on her own time, hates public school and MySpace with a passion, and will vote for politicians who will uphold the law and support science.
That said, I am deeply pessimistic about the future.
Posted by: Morgan | August 3, 2006 11:14 AM
Yes. And I think we can say something a fair bit stronger than this, and show Squeaky wrong.
Science has shown that almost anything that almost anybody actually means by "god" in normal speech probably doesn't exist, and that it's stupid to think it does.
There are no non-overlapping magisteria because god theories are always grounded (erroneously) in actual experience, and there's always a theory involved about how the hypothesized god(s) affect something that somebody observed or experienced.
The only non-falsifiable and irrefutable theories of gods are artificial ones---exercises in theology designed or evolved to evade falsification.
But actual god theories, i.e., what religious people actually care about when they say "god" as opposed to (say) "mysterious alien," are not abstract exercises in nearly-vacuous deism.
I strongly suspect that this is true of Squeaky. When she asserts that science "hasn't disproven God," or that it's "unscientific" to say that science has anything to say about the subject, the onus is on her to show that there is some tenable notion of "god" that is interesting and meaningful to call a god.
So here's a few of questions for Squeaky:
1. What kind of god hasn't science disproven, or at least debunked, by showing grave problems with the god theory and/or providing better much explanations of everything the god theory was constructed to explain? (E.g., thunder, life, love, morality, etc.)
2. Is a tenable god different from a powerful alien, i.e., what makes it actually a god? (If you'd accept Q from Star Trek TNG as a god, I'd say sure, science can't disprove that. There may well be mysterious powerful aliens out there somewhere. So what? Why call that a god, as though there was an important distinction?)
3. What theoretical work does a tenable god theory do? How is it unlike a theory of phlogiston, the ether, or a vital essence---i.e., not part of a failed paradigm and therefore disproven in the vernacular sense in which we'd say that vitalism has been "disproven" by showing that something else actually does what the vital essence was hypothesized to explain.
Religious apologists of all sorts get way too much mileage out of saying that you "can't disprove" God, in order to construct a fallacy of four terms that hinges on the ambiguity of the word "god," and/or one based on an ambiguity in the word "disproven."
(For example, believing that a mysterioius alien might possibly have accidentally constructed our universe does not make it non-stupid to worship Jesus. Likewise, believing that there may be mysterious forces we don't yet understand does not make it non-stupid to believe in The Force.)
I say that for any interesting notion of a god, suitable for religious purposes, science can indeed show that it's not a plausible theory and that it's stupid to believe in it. Everybody who thinks there's a god and cares enough about it to use the word "god" (a) believes things about that god that are implausible in light of modern science, if not impossible and (b) believes it based on demonstrably bad reasoning.
The real issue is not what nearly-vacuous statements can be conclusively disproven; it's what meantingful statements can be shown to be impossible, incredible or implausible.
Squeaky, please try to prove me wrong. Show that you're not doing a bait and switch here, and that what science "can't disprove" about "god" somehow matters to whether any religous conception of a god is non-stupid in light of modern science.
If there are non-overlapping magisteria, please show at least one thing that is within the scope of religion and outside the scope of science, and try to make it credible that religion actually says something true or at least credible that science can't touch.
Posted by: Paul W. | August 3, 2006 11:19 AM
Morgan, Rx:cut down to only one newspaper per day.
Posted by: Gary Hurd | August 3, 2006 11:40 AM
The thing is, belief in Christianity is not based on science. Very few Christians say "I believe in God because I believe he makes the sun rise and the rain fall." Belief that God created everything is part of Christianity, but not the foundation of Christianity.
I agree--there is no scientific evidence that God exists. Scientific evidence is evidence that is testable and repeatable. You get no argument from me there. Christians who are trying to argue that there is scientific evidence do not understand the scientific method. To propose the hypothesis that the universe exists because God created it is not a scientific hypothesis because there is no way to scientifically test that hypothesis. You can say, "well this has been shown to occur naturally, therefore there is no God." To which I say (as a theist, not as a scientist), so what? What you have told me is how God did it. You haven't disproven God.
Ask many Christians what physical evidence they have for God, and they may relate their personal experiences--feelings, totally impossible ways out of incredibly difficult circumstances, healings that doctors have no explanations for. Try as you might, you cannot argue against someone's personal experience, no matter what scientific justification you come up with to explain it. And all of those things are anecdotal evidence, none of which can fall into the realm of science. How can you develop a scientific test for someone's experience, especially if that experience happens to be a healing that doctors cannot scientifically explain? My point is that faith and religious experience are not scientifically testable, and therefore do not fall into the realm of science.
But be that as it may, again, Christian faith is not based on science. The Bible is not a science book, even though this whole creation vs. evolution argument is based on the incorrect belief that it has much more to say about science than it actually does. So just because we can understand how things work from a totally naturalistic standpoint, does not and should not threaten anyone's faith, especially when their faith is not and should not be based on a need for a lack of a scientific explanation for everything. Christianity is a religion that is based on faith in Christ, and that is the foundation, not science.
Posted by: Squeaky | August 3, 2006 12:34 PM
GWW
Just one more thing from your post above:
"Scientists and educators would really be doing kids a favor by teaching kids passionately and vociferaously facts such as "CREATIONISM IS BULLSHIT" and "PEOPLE WHO CLAIM THE EARTH IS LESS THAN 1,000,000 YEARS OLD ARE LIARS OR NUTS" rather than trying to "educate them" about neutral selection and other details of evolutionary biology. The statements in quotes are indisputable facts. They are easy to remember. They will help kids figure out when a person down the road is credible or not."
The concern I have with this approach is that you would only be preaching to the choir. Those students who believe in Creationism would be completely turned off and cemented in their beliefs that science is in opposition to their faith. Are you really saying that you cannot present evolution and the age of the earth in a way that 1) does not water down the science to soften things up for theists, and 2) does not trip the alarms in the theist student's heads and cause them to erect their walls and defenses?
You need to be far more creative than that if your goal is to win people over to science rather than alienate and marginalize the theists. Your approach tells me that you have already written those kids off.
But most disturbing is your statement that this tactic should be used "rather than trying to "educate them" about neutral (sic) selection and other details of evolutionary biology."
In other words, take a dictatorial approach--pound it in their heads that this is what they must believe, or they are idiots. And they better not dare question your authority. Why should anyone be expected to believe anything anyone tells them without any evidence presented to them? Why would anyone advocate that any student of science should not demand evidence and not foster a curious mind? That statement is one of the most unscientific statements I have ever read in this forum.
Posted by: Squeaky | August 3, 2006 12:43 PM
Healings that doctors have no explanations for.
The irony with this one is that they had something on it recently. Basically, while no specific data exists for "all" cases, these "miracle" healings fall into a handful of categories:
1. Misdiagnosis. I.e., the lab got the info wrong or the doctor added 2+2 and got 5, so told the patient about something they "thought" they had, when it was something far more benign.
2. Avoidance of false hope. I.e., the assumption that its better to tell the loved ones about the "worst case", instead of giving them hope that its the best case, then having it turn out to be the worst.
3. People coming out of comas.
In the first two cases, the "miracle" is nothing more than the body healing itself of either the "real" condition, in spite of the failure of the doctors to correctly identify it, or the true scale of how bad it is. In other words, not a ##@$# miracle.
In the last case, people come out of comas all the time. What you don't hear, and which is completely glossed over by "everyone" that claims that they witnessed a miracle, in which their loved one woke up, is that they "never" completely recover. If it was a real miracle, and not just the brain finally rewiring some critical connections, to regain consciousness, they wouldn't lose everything from memories to motor control. Some of the "biggest" miracles of this sort include one nut whose father was in such a state for something like 20+ years. He woke up. But he can't walk, can't talk properly, can't feed himself, doesn't understand that his kids are grown up or recognize them, etc. Praise Jesus, its bullpucky!
Congradulations Squeaky, you did exactly what was predicted, you dredged up a common claim about proof of God, that can, is and makes far more sense, when explained by science, then insisted that this qualified as some sort of proof. The reality is, people that believe exagerate "everything" that they can't easilly explain into some sort of miracle, and most of them don't know the difference between clothing thread and surgical thread, never mind enough to know why their friends/relatives miraculous recovery "wasn't". Doctors unfortunately, usually not being true scientists in any legitimate sense of the word, exacerbate this, by using the same term to refer to every recovery they didn't diagnose properly or simply by exagerating the actual risk or condition, in the belief that its better to hedge their bets and claim the patient might die, than to instead claim they will live, only to get sued for lying to the relatives when they die anyway.
For this to be a real justification for belief, you would have to a) get rid of the false pessimism of the doctors, b) completely eliminate human error in diagnostics and c) tape the doctors, and the presses, mouth shut, so they don't babble, "miracle", every time something removes a splinter from some patients fingure under vaguely unusual circumstances. If there was any "miracles" left by then, you might have a valid point...
Posted by: Kagehi | August 3, 2006 2:09 PM