T.H. Huxley on the ignorance of biology

Popularizers of science are faced with a daunting problem when it comes to communicating their enthusiasm for nature; their audience doesn't speak the same language. I don't mean this to say that scientists are inherently poor communicators or all deliver jargon-packed lectures that extinguish interest. Rather, many people don't have a grasp of the basic "alphabet" of science, and it is sometimes difficult to keep in mind that what you or I might consider a "basic" fact is something that is not so easily grasped to someone who hasn't heard it before. This is made all the more difficult when members of the public accept nonsensical doctrines like young-earth creationism, yet this is not a new problem. Included with T.H. Huxley's 1876 American Addresses is a "Lecture on the Study of Biology" in which the anatomist considers the persistent attacks of those who do not understand science;

I wonder what a scholar would say to the man who would undertake to criticize a difficult passage in a Greek play, but who obviously had not acquainted himself with the rudiments of Greek grammar. And yet, before giving positive opinions about these high questions of Biology, people not only do not seem to think it necessary to be acquainted with the grammar of the subject, but they have not even mastered the alphabet. You find criticism and denunciation showered about by persons, who, not only have not attempted to go through the discipline necessary to enable them to be judges, but who have not even reached that stage of emergence from ignorance in which the knowledge that such a discipline is necessary dawns upon the mind. I have had to watch with some attention -- in fact I have been favoured with a good deal of it myself -- the sort of criticism with which biologists and biological teachings are visited. I am told every now and then that there is a "brilliant article" in so-and-so, in which we are all demolished. I used to read these things once, but I am getting old now, and I have ceased to attend very much to this cry of "wolf." When one does read any of these productions, what one finds generally, on the face of it, is that the brilliant critic is devoid of even the elements of biological knowledge, and that his brilliancy is like the light given out by the crackling of thorns under a pot of which Solomon speaks.

Two things must be obvious: in the first place, that every man who has the interests of truth at heart must earnestly desire that every well-founded and just criticism that can be made should be made; but that, in the second place, it is essential to anybody's being able to benefit by criticism, that the critic should know what he is talking about, and be in a position to form a mental image of the facts symbolised by the words he uses. If not, it is as obvious in the case of a biological argument, as it is in that of a historical or philological discussion, that such criticism is a mere waste of time on the part of its author, and wholly undeserving of attention on the part of those who are criticised.

Although I'm sure any number of examples could be cited, the incredibly weak attempt of Caroline Crocker to criticize evolution most immediately came to mind upon reading this. Her lectures were so full of mistakes that it is surprising how she was allowed to teach anything, and after reading the Creation Science Quarterly for nearly a year I'm convinced that there is nearly nothing positive to be gained from reading the attempts of creationists to emulate peer-reviewed technical papers either. (Most of what is published in such journals are book reviews and op-ed style articles, anyway.)

Even so, it pays to be aware of what creationists are up to. Although Huxley does not explicitly state this in his passage he does make the point that if you are going to criticize something you had better be well-versed in the subject. It is important for those who speak out against creationism, then, to be familiar with creationist arguments to successfully defeat them. Being that so many creationist diatribes are merely rhetoric and hot air, it is not enough to simply know science well; understanding the tactics of your opponent are invaluable if you want to crush their argument. From what I've seen there are some scientists who do this well while creationists typically prey upon the credulous ("He must be right, he's a preacher"), the scientific "language barrier" being one of the biggest obstacles for science popularizers.

Evolution is something that concerns everyone, a subject on which nearly everyone holds an opinion. The question is, "What forms those opinions?" As Huxley notes earlier in the essay there was once some controversy about whether "biology" was an appropriate title for life sciences in general, a scholar arguing that "bios" was life only in relation to humans. Even though this criticism never took hold it offers up an interesting point for consideration. Is there a part of natural science that does not also relate to us and the universe we inhabit? Some might consider the rhythms of pulsars or the mating habits of slugs irrelevant, yet they are a part of nature, as are we, and it is impossible to maintain that we are "in the world" but not "of it." Recognizing that biological research applies to everyone, that questions like "Where do we come from?" have answers, is a reason to continue to try and enlighten people about how absolutely fascinating nature is.