Imagine a scientific theory that very few people know or understand. Let's call it "valency theory". Now suppose someone objects to valency theory because it undercuts their view of a particular religious doctrine, such as transubstantiation. So they gather money from rich members of their faith community and start a public relations and political campaign to have the form-substance dichotomy (hylomorphism) taught as chemical science. What would be the outcome?
Well, for most people they would remain as uneducated on the topic as before. They may know, vaguely, there is a dispute of some kind. They may even accept the slogans of the leaders in their own faith community that hylomorphism is right and valency theory is wrong.
A small proportion would read up on the two ideas, and make a relatively, if lay and underinformed, decision. The majority of these would probably adopt the scientific view, or try to reconcile their doctrinal elements with the physical theory. As a result, there will now be more people who know what valency theory is than before.
Science teachers and those who already value science may strive to have valency theory only taught in class, as valency theory actually is used as science. The promoters of the hylomorphic "theory" would try to sell this as science taking the role of religion. And, in this case, they'd be right. But not because science actually is a religion, but because religion actually isn't science.
Add a bunch of continuous legal challenges and defences in both directions. No matter how many times the courts say you cannot introduce religious dogma as science into science classes, the proponents will continue to try. And defenders of the science, both those who are educated as scientists and those who are educated as communicators, will continue to argue against them in public.
And the result will be, ironically, that more of the lay public will know of valency theory than otherwise.
The moral of this Aesopian Fable: sure, give the antiscience folk air. It means that in absolute terms more folk will know about the wonder that is science.
- Log in to post comments
Brilliant. Thanks for the good read.
I pretty much agree with you except this statement in the middle (emphasis obviously mine).
"The majority of these would probably adopt the scientific view, or try to reconcile their doctrinal elements with the physical theory."
That's a pretty big "probably". Is it not just as likely that many (or maybe even the majority) would say "I don't believe it because it doesn't sit with my system and there seems to be a bunch of others who agree"?
Well that's what's at issue, isn't it? I think, based on my subjective observation of how creationism has led to an increase in awareness of evolution, up from my childhood, that it's a reasonably good assumption. Nearly everyone who I know has investigated the issue has ended up pro-evolution and anti-creationism or ID. Those who do not investigate it tend to be those who go along with the "doesn't sit with my system" view.
Just as a data point: it was my encounter with talk.origins, back in the early 90s, that lead me to do more serious reading on evolution, science in general, and even a little philosophpy thereof.
I made a similar argument a few years ago:
http://ragesossscholar.blogspot.com/2005/11/h-net-intelligent-design-di…
I agree! Only I didn't put it in such polite terms, hee hee.
Until I started coming across creationists my knowledge of evolutionary theory was limited to 1970s era middle school general science and David Attenborough docos on the ABC.
Since then I've spent time getting my head around things like allopatric speciation, endogenous retroviruses, cladistics, gene duplications and punctuated equilibrium.
I've read lots of Dawkins, Gould, Jared Diamond, and heaps of wikipedia articles on biology, genetics, and related topics. Steve Jones' "Almost Like a Whale" is my current bedside reading (I just finished Shermer's "Why Darwin Matters").
PZ Myers is on my "favorites" list. (Now I'm sounding tragic!)
It's fascinating stuff, not just for the science, but also for the - let's face it - the blood sport factor. I probably never would have got into it if it had been left up to proper biologists to kindle my interest.
Thanks, creationists, you've done me a service.
Can I play Devil's advocate?
First, aren't you claiming causation when you only have correlation? The world has changed massively in the last half century; religions tend to be very bad at adapting to change; ergo, they naturally lose ground.
Second, creationist pressure to remove or downplay evolution in education results in a huge, and very unusual difference between biologists and laypeople in their estimates of how solid a theory evolution is. Nobody really doubts gravitation, or Faraday's Laws, or the periodic table, yet outside the specialists, a majority seem to think that evolution only has so-so validity. This is to our detriment - e.g. XDR-TB.
Thirdly, what is the human cost of the struggle?
Lurker #753
I thought that as a matter of real historical fact, the atomic theory of matter was opposed by many believers in God generally, as well as by believers in transubstantiation. (There was one chap who went to the extreme about this conflict, by claiming that the Inquisition was after Galileo because his support for the atomic theory of matter. I'm just noting that, to distance myself from that sort of claim.)
Not only was the atomic theory of matter materialistic, but it also relied on chance.
It isn't only a fable, it really happened.
@TomS: This is a new one to me, any useful sources to look up?
Was there a substantial (har, har) argument? How long did it last? I'm guessing that there came a point where the argument was simply let drop, the few remaining fighters simply allowed to rant unopposed and ignored.
This isn't happening (or is happening surpassingly slowly) with biology's foundation, although we're further past the reasonable-doubt stage than just about any other science. All that useless friction...
Very clever, and you make a good point. A silver lining to the smelly creationist cloud might be that it could drive some people to look into science who wouldn't have otherwise.
My worry, though, is that lack of relevant knowledge would mean they would have difficulty distinguishing pseudoscience from real science. If they lack training in critical thinking (which most people do), they might end up finding what they think is science, but is actually hogwash. How many anti-vaccine people are educated at what Orac calls "Google University"?
So I have some difficulty being as optimistic as you are, but I still mostly agree with you. Let's just hope that good science is kept prominent and available to increase the chances of one of these people alighting on solid, evidence based reasoning rather than denialist distortions.
@Lurker#753
Go outside though and ask some random people what Faraday's law is, or who Faraday was, or what Faraday's law is about. Unless you happen on an electrician, they're going to draw a blank.
Gravitation? Something about apples falling from trees.
But they'll certainly have heard of Darwin. There's even a decent chance they'll have some concept of natural selection.
@Lurker:
The definitive statement of the atomism story is "Galileo Heretic" by Pietro Redondi, 1989 or so. I don't think it has ever had much success in Hist of Sci circles, but you'll find the idea floating around the Interet like -- oh well, you'll find it floating around.
Atomism was definitely in bad odor with the religious and philosophical authorities back in the day. But I don't think I've heard of any case in which it was an issue by the time that atoms began to be evidence-based in the 19th century.
Tom et al.: I was actually thinking of a much later event: the rejection by a Catholic movement of atomism in the late 19th century because it conflicted with transubstantiation.
But Galileo need not have actually been an atomist to have been attacked as an Epicurean or Democritan. Catholic theologians, along with other theists, Jewish and Muslim, disliked explanations of the physical world that did not directly involve the activity of God. As Galileo gave an account of the physical universe in terms of its innate properties, that would be enough to trigger the Epicurean criticisms of the theists.
@AntiquatedTory
It's not that everybody should know these things, it's that everybody who needs to does understand and accept.
In the case of evolution, there are two other groups: those who are aware and oppose; and their recruits. John Wilkin's observation was that some recruits move from into the "understand and accept" category, enlarging that group contrary to the recruiters' goals.
Great, but the "understand and accept" would be much bigger if the anti-evo groups weren't fighting every inch (e.g. only skimming treatment in school textbooks). So we can have medical personnel handling anti-biotics carelessly and accidentally creating XDR-TB.
If I go out into the street, and meet an electrician, they'd be considered incompetent/unqualified in their own trade if they didn't know the relevant stuff. Somehow evolution is permanently in the take-it-or-leave-it category, despite its wide relevance
@Porlock Hussein
Thanks for the reference, this sounds like an interesting story to chase down.
I agree with the general thrust of your argument...but I would add that the timescale may not be to our liking. EVENTUALLY, evolution will become as widely accepted as quantum mechanics or relativity (and much better understood) but at THIS time, we may be on the turn of the spiral where it actually looses ground for a few years. Within the US, the regions in which evolution is sufficiently "controversial" to be widely disbelieved are expanding, not contracting. In the wider world, creationism has found a very hospitable environment in the Muslim regions and in places like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, students in school are not even taught evolution (though a kind of "dont ask dont tell" version is taught in college level biology). In East Asia, Japan seems to have escaped the evangelical onslaught, but China and Korea are going to see problems in the near future because of their increasing evangelical populations. ..and so on.
Redondi is a respected member of the history of science community and his book and the thesis contained therein are taken very seriously by this community. It was by the way originally published in 1983 in Italian. In the mean time further documentary researches in the Vatican archives have substantiated his claims that Galileo had been formally denounced as an atomist. Had he been formally charged it would have been, as Redondi says, a heresy charge and have automatically carried the death penalty. Whether the actual charges of teaching an erroneous belief, a lesser charge without an automatic death sentence, were brought to save him from the heresy charge (Redondi's main claim) is much more difficult, if not impossible, to prove.
Galileo is not the only scientist to get into trouble for toying with atomism in this period. Thomas Harriot (1560-1621), the English astronomer and mathematician, was formally investigated on a charge of atheism because of his interest in atomism, he was how ever cleared of suspicion and never tried.
I echo #8: Just because evolution is generally more-well-understood by the current population than it was a few decades ago (and I'm not even 100% sure that this is a fact), this may or may not be due to creationists making a fuss, or to evolutionists fighting back. Heck, I might even guess that the general public's understanding of evolution got WORSE following the Scopes trial (which WAS due to creationists making a fuss), and is only now finally recovering.
I might even guess that the general public's understanding of evolution got WORSE following the Scopes trial
Considering how bad the version of evolution that was fought over from Hunter's Civic Biology, I'm not surprised. It was from the "Eclipse of Darwin" period, in which evolution was held to be progressive, and inheritance acquired.
Slightly off topic but because of the debate about atomism I thought it would be appropriate to mention here that today, 23rd. April 2008, is the 150 anniversary of the birth of Max Planck the discovery of the quantum effect and therefore the father of the modern atomism.
An interesting and plausible conjecture.
Is there any evidence that supports it?
As I said, this is my anecdotal experience. But I am sure one could mine the survey literature for evidence one way or the other. But if the Framing Debaters are correct, and criticising creationists is to give them air, then exactly the same thing is true for evolution when creationists give evolution air, by parity of reasoning. And a debate ensues in which ideas become more widely known.
This is slightly different because it involves a dispute between several different scientific theories but there is positive historical evidence that suggests that more people learnt about the theories of Copernicus from the books of his opponents, Clavius (a supporter of Ptolemaeus) and Gassendi (a supporter of Tycho), than by reading Copernicus' own De revolutionibus or Rheticus' Narratio prima. Having your opponents discuss and criticise your theories in public definitely helps to make them more widely known.
I think that's a little simplistic. We give creationists air by accurately describing then refuting their claims. They give evolution air by lying through their teeth about it. An observer who had never heard of creationism could construct a reasonable picture of what it is by reading anti-creationist material, but an observer who had never heard of evolution would remain pretty clueless about it if they read only creationist sources.