Anyone who's spent even a modest amount of time and effort investigating the battle over the teaching of intelligent design creationism in the country's classrooms will recognize the argument that an understanding of evolution is essential to a decent science education, let alone a degree in biology. And so it is.
But many of the same proponents of banishing creationist clap-trap from public schools, myself included, often extend that argument beyond science into the wider cultural and economic spheres. And there things get a little muddy.
A proper understanding of evolution is the foundation of the life sciences and competence in the life sciences is key to current and future prosperity, thanks to the growing dominance of the biosciences in the modern economy. The implication is that the country's ability to compete in the global marketplace of ideas relies on a well-educated professional class of geneticists, chemists and physicians, all of which must have a good grasp not only of technology, but evolutionary biology.
This line of reasoning is still attractive, but not quite as solid as the simpler connection between being able to explain natural selection and passing a first-year college biology course. While most of us science types would like to believe that it's impossible to be a decent doctor or pharmacologist without acknowledging the contribution that Charles Darwin made to the field, the fact is there are actually a fair number of successful and even reputable MDs, chemistry PhDs and even gene-splicers out there who secretly and not-so-secretly favor a creationist explanation for the diversity life.
I know some such individuals personally, and disagree as I might with their point of view on this subject, I find it hard to maintain that they are not qualified to work in their chosen field. So I think it necessary to revisit the arguments against creationism in the classroom, insofar as we need solid, inescapable logic if we are to keep the creeping forces of irrationalism at bay. Claiming the Japanese are going to destroy our economy is probably not the most convincing defence of Darwinism.
There is, of course, no evidence for creationism (whether the six-day or the intelligent design variety), and oodles for evolution. And that's all you really need to settle a scientific argument. But what I'm looking for is a good non-scientific reason to object to creationist instruction, one that might win the hearts and minds of those not yet convinced by the hard, cold facts.
And in these last hours of the 2006 elections, I think I've found one. It probably won't appeal to Christian fundamentalists, but it might among those less obsessive about keeping the Sabbath holy and whatnot. I refer to the power of doubt that science can bring to electoral politics -- this is the Island of Doubt, after all.
Yesterday I was listening to NPR's Weekend Edition, and I found myself listening to a series of Tennessee voters explain why they're voting Republican (again). Among the more pathetic excuses offered by one woman was the need to lend support, not to the troops, not even to her faith, but to the president.
Those familiar with logic will recognize the fallacy of the argument from authority. It's hard for those trained to examine the merits of an argument rather than allow judgment to rest on the source alone to understand fully, but this is exactly the kind of thing millions of Americans will do when they head to the polls on Tuesday. The president deserves our support. Period. Never mind what he and his administration have done for the past six years. Just support the president. Because he's the president.
Of those millions who will defer to authority, I strongly doubt that more than a tiny fraction of them have a science degree. There will be many scientists who vote in favor of the status quo, of course, but most of them will have at least some modicum of a reason for doing so other than the need to support the president.
By contrast, when scientists gather to listen to their colleagues explain their work, dismissing results simply because they come from a competitor, or accepting a conclusion simply because it was made by a friend, just isn't the way things are done. I've been looking at the reaction to this week's big paper in Science, the one that predicts most of the commercial fish stocks will be gone by 2048. Much in the way of interesting debate over the merits of the analysis and models used by the 14 authors can be found, but none resting on their character or reputation. (Full disclosure: more than one is an acquaintance of mine. Plus, I once attended by presentation by the lead author, Boris Worm, that dealt with the same issues as those raised in the current paper. His methods and approach were subjected to considerable scrutiny and skepticism, but no one in the room was more concerned with Worm's personality or professional position than the actual numbers and methods being used.)
From this study in contrasts I conclude that an education that includes a decent understanding of the scientific method, one that emphasizes the importance of empiricism, evidence, testability, peer-review and logic should foster a healthy degree of skepticism and doubt when it comes to authority figures, or at the very least, a lack of deference to them.
So here we have a solid reason to support a proper science education, one free of dogma and irrationality (i.e., no creationism) and deference to authority. Not because it's wrong to teach things we know aren't true (although it is), and not only because it might undermine our competitive advantage in a global economy (although it might), but because it's one way produce better voters.
Am I suggesting that scientists make better citizens? Only in this one domain of the significance of authority. In other matters concerning how to play the role of engaged citizen, scientists can be just as dense as anyone else.
- Log in to post comments