Continue reading "Dr. Eugenie Scott on 'Hardball'" (on The Austringer)
Dr. Eugenie Scott on "Hardball"
↗ The current version of this post is on the live site: https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/04/dr-eugenie-scot.html
Dr. Eugenie Scott appeared on the MSNBC interview show "Hardball" on April 21st. There is a transcript available here. Along with host Chris Matthews, there was Reverend Terry Fox on the program. The topic was the push in Kansas to change public school science standards.
Dr. Scott was able to make several good points despite the tendency of Matthews to interrupt his guests.
137 Comments
Sir_Toejam · 23 April 2005
Chris Mathews fumbles the ball right off by asking Fox:
"...You could simply say this up front.. We all believe this, that this is how God did it, and then proceed from there, in a scientific fashion."
as if it was perfectly logical to proceed in a "scientific fashion" from that point.
Fox dropped the ball handed to him by that statement. The fact that Mathews even made it to begin with makes me weep for journalistic integrity.
*sigh*
JohnK · 23 April 2005
Wesley R. Elsberry · 23 April 2005
I've made some comments on a Friedman op-ed at the Austringer weblog, post "It's the Economy".
Mike Walker · 24 April 2005
Is there a set of "anti-creationist" talking points anywhere that people who go on these awful pundit shows can at least get across in the woefully short time they're allowed?
We need a set of short, snappy, memorable phrases that can be used at a moment's notice and deployed in full before the host or opponent has the chance to cut you off.
For example, when creationists like Fox claim that since the majority of people in America believe in creationism we should teach "both sides" of the issue, you should immediately be able to come back and ask if we should be teaching astrology in schools as well as astronomy since a vast number of people in this country read their horoscopes every morning.
I hate to say it, but we could learn a lot from the spinmeisters being employed by the current occupant of the White House in this regard.
Mike Walker · 24 April 2005
Oh, and how about a couple of visual aids to help put the point across how overwhelming the support for evolution is in the scientific community?
First one visual aid (a chart or preferably something solid, tactile, a model) that shows the number of creationist scientists vs the overwhelming number of evolutionists - i.e. a visual version of Project Steve.
I'm not the creative type, but you could hold up, say, three page pamplet in one hand and a four volume set of dictionaries in the other, or perhaps a pair of peas in one hand, and a huge sack of them in the other.
You get the idea - I'm sure someone else can do better.
And while we're at it, I would love for someone to produce an effective visual representation of the sheer volume of scientific work (papers, books, etc) that have been published supporting evolution as opposed to the paltry amount supporting ID or creationism in general.
I don't think the general public fully comprehends the huge advantage in numbers evolution has in this debate, be it scientists or their work, and an effective visual cue to clue them in could help sway the debate.
Think Ross Perot (yeah, I know he lost, but he got his point across).
Lurker · 24 April 2005
The only disappointing aspect of that interview was Eugenie's dodging of her own philosophical views. Who cares about Eugenie's philosophy? Well, if you're going to play politics, Ms. Scott, then we all do. But given a veteran debater like herself, we should expect a much more eloquent response than "It is... [cut off]."
Let me see if I can help her out:
Chris, I don't believe it was an "accident." I believe that life is an inevitable outcome of natural forces and contingent events that are no more accidental than the hurricane that swept through Florida or the asteroid that wiped out life during the age of dinosaurs. I believe that the more we understand through scientific methods about our origins -- the origins of life -- the better prepared we are to have meaningful discourse about our place on this planet, shared with all other types of living organisms.
Hell, we can try a less wordy approach:
Chris, I don't know what to believe about our origins. And I don't think anybody else does either. We just don't have the facts. We do know what is wrong, moreso than what we absolutely know is right. Without the facts, it would be premature for me to express hard beliefs.
Or, let's try a combative approach:
Chris, I believe that Reverend Fox is wrong. My worldview can easily fall into one of many other belief systems that are incompatible with the Reverend's. I do not believe in perpetuating 2000 year old propaganda that the Bible is a science book. I do not believe that the Reverend has the Consitutional right to force his close-minded views on others.
Lurker · 24 April 2005
One more comment: Please, Eugenie, find a Christian spokesperson for your group. I am really not sure what to think of your preaching to Christians about what other Christians think, when you yourself are not a Christian. Collect testimonials of Christians supporting evolution, if you have to. Cite them. Don't just assert.
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 24 April 2005
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 24 April 2005
luminous beauty · 24 April 2005
RevDr Lenny;
I'd like to suggest that science is the perfect democracy. The concensus view is based on informed consent within the given discipline. If only electoral politics had such rigor.
Ed Darrell · 24 April 2005
Just curious: How does one know that the current "spokesmen" for evolution are not Christian, or Jewish, or Moslem, or in some other faith tradition? For example, we know for a fact that Ken Miller, co-author of one of the most-used biology textbook series, is a faithful Catholic, because he wrote a book about it.
Perhaps the issue really is that people who know about evolution, which is a topic appropriate to science, talk about science. And perhaps others confuse that ability to stay on topic and speak intelligently as being "not Christian." I think it's the bias of most people, creationists especially included, that lump intelligent, well-informed people as "not Christian."
Chip Poirot · 24 April 2005
Here is what I think is an effective "talking point" when asked about your own personal philosophy. It has the advantage I think, of being both honest and fair.
My own view of the world is X (if your view is purely naturalist then say so). But evolution as a scientific theory is compatible with many views on religion. It is perfectly valid to look at evolution and conclude that there is an intelligent force behind evolution. It is also valid to conclude the opposite. Scientists should not force either view into the science classroom and when they state their worldview, they should be careful to distinguish accepted theories from metaphysical speculation.
That's probably a bit too wordy. It will never satisfy the fundamentalists. But we should not worry about satisfying them because we never will. We need to address our arguments to the broad middle of moderate to liberal christians, as well as conservative christians whose approach is compatible with a scientific world view.
caerbannog · 24 April 2005
I don't want to steer this thread off-topic, but it looks like a creationist lawyer by the name of Larry Caldwell may be threatening Eugenie Scott with legal action. According to a WingNutDaily article at http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43953, Caldwell claims that Ms. Scott libeled him by spreading falsehoods about his proposed changes to a local school-district's science curriculum.
Does anyone have any information about what Caldwell really *did* propose to the school district? I haven't been able to find any specific information on-line (curious, given Caldwell's eagerness to jump all over those who "misrepresent" him).
Caldwell is suing his school district for ignoring his proposals. (You can find his legal complaint on-line at:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=274
I downloaded and read through Caldwell's complaint, and even though he references his proposal (his so-called "Quality Science Education policy") over 100 times, he provides no specific information as to what is actually *in* that proposal. Anyone here have any info?
Russell · 24 April 2005
Wesley R. Elsberry · 24 April 2005
Caldwell provided supplementary antievolution materials to the Roseville school board. This is reported in a number of different places. Caldwell objects strenuously to the claim that the Sarfati and Watchtower antievolution books were part of set of materials that he provided.
What would be interesting to see is if there is really any wide mismatch in the content of what Caldwell must stipulate that he did provide to the Roseville School Board and the materials that he objects to having associated with him. It is very likely that the Sarfati and Watchtower books have some form of many of the arguments made in materials such as "Icons of Evolution" (the DVD) and "Unlocking the Mystery of Life" (another DVD). The only reason I see to objecting to those books in particular is that they don't shy away from making the full argument ("Not evolution, therefore the God of the bible.") that the DVDs only give the premises of. And that is only a concern given the consistent failure of "creation science" to make any headway in the US legal system.
If I could get some volunteers, this could be a good project to set up. What I'm envisioning is that each volunteer would take on a particular source item (either one of the books or DVDs) and provide a listing of arguments made in the source using Mark Isaak's "Index to Creationist Claims" (with page references for the books). Then we simply can see which arguments are in both Caldwell's materials and the materials that he wants no part of. Anybody who is up for this, please let me know.
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 24 April 2005
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, Dr Scott, file an immediate "discovery" motion to (1) obtain copies of all of Discovery Institute's internal memos and documents, and (2) force Howard Ahmanson to release a list of everyone he's given money to in the past 15 years.
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 24 April 2005
Longhorm · 24 April 2005
Wesley R. Elsberry · 24 April 2005
Sir_Toejam · 24 April 2005
"If I could get some volunteers, this could be a good project to set up."
I seem to have way too much time on my hands these days. count me in.
Buridan · 24 April 2005
Wesley R. Elsberry · 24 April 2005
Buridan · 24 April 2005
I didn't mean to repreat Longhorn's play by play but there's a delay in the server. Sorry about that.
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 24 April 2005
Lurker · 24 April 2005
Wesley,
I think it is great that we have someone like Eugenie being a spokeswoman for evolution and sound science education. I really hope that no one would misconstrue my previous comments to suggest otherwise. We would lose a considerable front in this skirmish if we didn't have Eugenie.
But, what I do find unfortunate is seeing the most visible person of NCSE get caught a bit flat-footed when it comes time for her to talk about her philosophy. I believe it is a bad day for all when a naturalist or an atheist need to resort to the same sort of insincere double-talk that DI and creationists employ when talking about their own worldviews. Eugenie really ought to stop acting like her philosophy is somehow a liability for good science. After all, she does believe her philosophy is immaterial to good science, no? As I mentioned earlier, yes, people are going to ask her about her worldviews. Yes people are going to wonder if she's metaphysically biased. No, she shouldn't deflect those issues by speaking _for_ Christians as if she were a Christian. No, she shouldn't let anyone cut her off when given such a rich opportunity to demonstrate why such a question is in fact irrelevant.
Let me clarify what I mean about needing a visible Christian spokesperson for NCSE. I realize that Matzke and you and Gishlick are all qualified candidates, and I do not mean to minimize your roles at the NCSE. But making a single person the "highest profile" proponent of a good scientific theory seems to be self-defeating. Frankly, it may be too much burden for one person to bear. Eugenie should find someone to share air time with, and not let the DI make her into the iconic Darwinian. Yet, the reality is that those who are the most knowledgeable about the subject, and most capable of providing testimony to lies and propaganda spread by creationists, are often those with the least amount of time to spend dealing with Creationists. It is unfortunate. But in the meantime, before those scientists figure out what's at stake for themselves, I am simply advocating a bit of political savvy until the heavy hitters come to play. And sometimes that means directing some of our critical energy towards ourselves.
Longhorm · 24 April 2005
Longhorm · 24 April 2005
Lurker · 24 April 2005
Longhorn, I see your point, but I find it overly optimistic. One cannot simply make the religious implications of evolution disappear by sticking with the science. Matthews started off the show with an explicitly religious tone, talking about his experiences with Christian schools teaching evolution. At that point, Eugenie should have switched gears and composed her message appropriately. We might wish that Matthews had stuck with the science rather than religious abuse of science during his entire interview. It ain't happening.
You're right that NCSE has no obligation in a Christian spokesperson. But, I think it helps to have a credible voice when such matters arise. In either case, we agree is that it is better to be prepared next time for such questions. Let's keep discussing how to be prepared.
By the way, I wish to reiterate. It is a good thing that Eugenie is a spokesperson for sound science education. It is not necessarily a good thing that Eugenie be painted as the _only_ spokesperson for a scientific theory. I see a tremendous risk in having NCSE be associated by the media as the source of all things Darwinian, and even then, to have Scott be its official spokesperson. The NCSE is not nearly as alone as the DI is -- they are not simply mirrors. Even the DI does not have a recognizable "official spokesperson" per se. For instance, we often refer to the DI as a whole for ID political activities, not to a single person who represents all of DI.
Wesley R. Elsberry · 24 April 2005
Wesley R. Elsberry · 24 April 2005
I've started a thread on the AE discussion board for the "tallying the arguments" project. If you are interested in volunteering to analyze a source document, please come over to that thread and say so.
Longhorm · 24 April 2005
Paul Flocken · 24 April 2005
Longhorm · 24 April 2005
Lurker · 24 April 2005
Longhorn,
I don't see avoidance as the ultimate solution to this problem. Integration of ideas requires confrontation. But it also requires picking the appropriate forum for such an exchange.
It may be that Eugenie brought the last exchange upon herself by dwelving into the nuances of theistic evolution from the start of the program. I don't know how Matthews had intended the interview would proceed. But, I believe a clever interviewer will always be able to find a way to bring up a question he wants asked. If that's the case, then Eugenie was caught off-guard. Where we differ, consequently, is what we perceive this interview to be about. I think this interview was not about evolution, per se. It was about how to teach evolution.
Still, the controversy of evolution teaching is, however you cast it, a religious problem, not a scientific one. We really wouldn't want Eugenie out there if it were truly a scientific issue. There are just that many more qualified individuals to speak to the present controversies and the hottest areas of research in evolutionary biology. Thus, Eugenie really was expected to speak to the religious aspects of evolutionary theory. Perhaps, she even expected to do so herself.
This is where politicizing science gets complicated. And there should be no doubt that when it comes to education, politics enacted in front of lay audiences is unavoidable. We see this problem all the time. Why, just the other day, we had university researchers chastised for being "amateurs" or being excessively rude. When it comes to a message of how evolution is compatible with religion, I am afraid that we proponents of evolution really do not have as coherent a platform as we hope. Can we simply rely on the so-called professionals? Meanwhile, the opposing close-minded message is simpler: they simply denounce any form of reconciliation between evolution and religion.
So what happens when the professionals that are at the frontlines of this cultural fight get ambushed by non-scientific, politically charged questions? When you are already knee-deep in the politics, can you simply run for the higher ground of science and scientific facts? I am skeptical
Look, I think this is a complicated issue. All I am saying is that in politics, the message is affected by the messenger. Eugenie obviously thinks that the message of compatibility between science and religion (especially Christianity) is important. I think most people who are interested in this debate would agree. But I wonder if she may be the wrong messenger for some of these issues. We who are insiders in this controversy may know that she is the spokesperson for the NCSE and not all of evolutionary biology, but does the rest of the public necessarily see this difference? If not, how should they react when they see the director of the NCSE attempts to dodge a question about her personal worldview, especially when "they" are already suspicious about the atheistic materialist agenda to brainwash their children?
In politics, I find that perceptions are on par with the facts. We know Dr. Scott to have honorable intents with regards to teaching evolution. But how do we get others to see what we see?
Lurker · 24 April 2005
One more for tonight. I think our opponents know about the role of perceptions very well, especially in this matter of religion and science. Consider a recent entry in Dembski's blog: http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/16 :
"I don't think any of us should be promoting (or at least going along with) the canard that John Paul II accepted "evolution" in some inappropriate sense. The 1996 Message on evolution was, indeed, a weak document, but it was also the least important thing JP II ever said about the topic. From the perspective of Catholic doctrine, an informal letter like that has basically zero magisterial authority. Most likely the letter was drafted by an accommodationist on the staff of the Pontifical Academy for the Sciences, vetted (but not properly vetted) by the staff theologians of the papal household, and then signed by the Pope, possibly without his even reading it. Then it seems that the Pontifical Academy for the Sciences did a major press release, and the world's media obliged by turning a trivial event into a front-page story. But degree of play in the New York Times has no theological significance . . . "
This is the sort of zero concession game that is typical of dirty politics. When it comes to matters of religion, maybe we should let those within the religion sort it out, before anybody else tries to?
Longhorm · 24 April 2005
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 25 April 2005
Paul Flocken · 25 April 2005
Lurker · 25 April 2005
Thank you all for the responses. As the work week begins, I just want to leave a few thoughts and hope the discussion may continue in my intermittent absence.
Longhorn,
I respectfully suggest that your strategy is what biologists do now. They talk about evolution. That's all they talk about, as far as the public can see. It's not like whenever there is a major breakthrough, the biologist goes on record with the media, "Oh btw, this is another piece of evidence supporting evolution." Or "Oh, while I am at it, we made this amazing discovery guided by evolutionary thinking." The strategy of talking evolution does not appear to work. That does not mean, however, that it is not important. I am simply recommending that we be prepared to answer the kulturkampf material.
Lenny,
I think you make my argument for me. That some religions do not find issues with evolution is besides the point. The point is that those fundamentalist Christian ayatollah-wanna-be's are in fact religious elements subverting good science. When poll after poll shows that a _majority_ of Americans believe in a 6000 year old Genesis account, I really do not see how this political issue is not inherently religious. It is not as if there is a diversity of non-darwinian accounts for the origins of man. It is predominantly of one sort.
We are in trouble when the media/the public perceives or portrays only atheists to have a stake in this controversy, more so than the Christians who have found that balance between science and religion. We have to identify the problem before we present a solution. So the first question to ask is this: Is the issue of teaching evolution inherently a problem with some Christian sects? If so, then the solution must be tailored to the problem. It is my view that getting atheists to speak for Christians about Christian issues on national TV does not cut it. Equally bad is having no one speak about the religious elements. So what do we do?
bill · 25 April 2005
Longhorm · 25 April 2005
Great White Wonder · 25 April 2005
Longhorm · 25 April 2005
Shenda · 25 April 2005
Mike Walker wrote:
"Oh, and how about a couple of visual aids to help put the point across how overwhelming the support for evolution is in the scientific community?"
I've always though it would be interesting to compare a copy of the single peer reviewed paper in support of ID and then compare it to a printed list of the titles of all the scientific peer reviewed papers of the last 15 years that have the words evolution or evolved in their titles or abstracts.
Keanus · 25 April 2005
Evolution vs. religion is a false dichotomy but one that is flogged for all its worth by most promoters of ID because it captures ears and plays to the martyr complex so prevalent among fundamentalists. Fundamentalists love to believe they are persecuted by a vast, nefarious and evil conspiracy of "evilutionists." For that reason alone the issue of evolution and ID should always be first addressed as a question of science alone, leaving religion entirely out of the debate. If the "debate" in question is like Scott's on Hardball, where there is an outside moderator, religion will be brought into the debate by that moderator---always---there is no need for Scott, or anyone else in similar shoes to introduce it. If brought in like Matthews did, with a question addressing Scott's religious views, the answer should be that biologists are as diverse in their religious views as the American population and that any one's particular religious views, such as Scott's, are irrelevant. The validity of evolution is about cold, hard data. The invalidity of ID is about its total lack of cold, hard data.
That said, there are political implications arising from evolution, primarily because certain fundamentalists see it as conflicting with a literal interpretation of the Bible. Debating that is meaningless. The fellows at the DI, of course, don't want to debate that since they maintain ID is science and not religion, but out in the real world, the religion side of the debate is very, very real and accounts for 99% of the public unease and opposition to evolution. And it's the facet they want to discuss. So it must be addressed, but only after the point about ID's lack of scientific creditials is made.
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 25 April 2005
Lurker · 29 April 2005
More recent news making my points above:
"Scott, who is perhaps the nation's most high-profile Darwinist, is frustrated by the scientific community's inability to grapple with the issue. "The point here is that Americans don't want to be told that God had nothing to do with it," she says. "And that's the way the intelligent-design people present evolution." Scientists need to do a better job of explaining that science makes no attempt to describe the supernatural and so has no inherent conflict with religion, she argues. "College professors need to be very aware of how they talk about things such as purpose, chance, cause and design," she says. "You should still be sensitive to the kids in your class."
What do you say, Wesley? Kindly drop the brush, Nature magazine?
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7037/full/4341062a.html
Perception is key in politics. And if you guys can't even take the heat from fellow evolution supporters, then I am afraid things are looking dismal indeed. Once again the DI knows this strategy very well. Consider the following trend amongst all of their recent "debates."
Dembski -- Lee Silver
Meyer -- Provine
Dembski -- Niall Shanks
Wells -- Pigliucci
Meyer -- Shermer
Rev. Fox -- Scott
See the pattern people? And this all happened in the last couple of months or so. So, what's the reality here? Am I just painting a dreary picture that proponents of evolution should dismiss, or am I reporting something that the evolution proponents should be aware of? What do the professionals say?
Lurker · 29 April 2005
Rev Dr. Lenny Flank,
You continue to make my points. I completely agree it is not about the science. I completely agree it is about fundamentalist Christians. And my conclusion is that this is a religious problem. I am not saying it is a religious problem for all. I am saying it is a religious problem for a particular sect of Christianity. But sticking together on all controversial messages has been the hardest part about Christiantiy, hasn't it?
In any case, let me be blunt. Intelligent Design is not an atheist/materialist problem. It is a theistic problem (and as Rev Dr. Lenny Flank points out, it is particularly a Christian problem). But the smartest move is to make it into an atheist/materialist problem. Once again, if this perception is not there, then there would not be an issue with my portrayal. But I suspect that there is some truth to these observations.
My view follows then, that we shouldn't be asking atheists to shoulder the burden of explaining the intricacies of Christian theology to Christian audiences. Ever. This includes making tame and ineffective observations about what Christians do or do not want to hear. It is a Christian problem. Get your house in order, folks.
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 29 April 2005
Lurker · 29 April 2005
Rev Dr Lenny Flank,
I apologize for not being clear in my post to you.
If you are right that 90% of the American population do not like atheists, then the smartest thing for ID and Creationism advocates to do is to portray evolution proponents as hardcore atheists. The trend of recent DI debates I cite support this theory. That the media considers Eugenie of the highest-profile "Darwinist" supports this theory.
I am not attacking religion. I am saying that Christians need to be more active than atheists in the perception of the public. I am saying that there should be more people like you. Lots more.
If most Christians indeed think creationists/IDers "nutty", I don't understand why the media isn't saturated with them decrying their politics and, more importantly, their misshapen religious doctrine when it comes to teaching evolution. They are out there decrying just about everything else these days.
Say I am convinced that atheists are more concerned about this evolution debate than Christians. How would you convince me I am wrong? If you think you can answer that satisfactorily, then you've really got to work on getting that message out to the rest of Christians in the US.
Lurker · 29 April 2005
One more post, before I retire for a while. Consider this list:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000002.html
Are 90% of these contributors Christian? If not, why not?
More importantly, if as Lenny Flank proposes above, if 90% of Americans don't like most of our atheist contributors, then what's the point of this blog? Is it just another atheist echo chamber, where unwilling Christians play second fiddle?
Sir_Toejam · 29 April 2005
I think lurker makes a legitimate point here. We've mostly let the IDers paint the picture as to what shapes this battle. It's time there is a coordinated effort to have the true majority paint the picture for a change.
OK, lurker... how does one go about doing that? Would you be willing to take the flak that Scott does in order to throw your views into the ring? do you know someone who would?
is there a need for a christian scientists for evolution organization?
I tried a google search to see if one existed. I searched on:
christian scientists for evolution
and ONLY found references to creationists, with this being the top link:
http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/home.html
It sure seems clear that the creationists have won the publicity battle, even if they are the minority of christians.
sounds like christians who do believe in evolution have a LOT of work to do to.
cheers
Sir_Toejam · 29 April 2005
It seems clear to me that the problem lies simply with "reasonableness". most people in general are fairly reasonable, and don't see a big reason to change things. which leaves it to those that do to drive the issues. Unless that changes, I wonder if this minority will end up dictating the future?
Sir_Toejam · 29 April 2005
interesting. I tried to post a link to the american vision site as an example of the possible "political future", and found that PT actually bans that link from being posted!
fascinating. I for one am of the opinion that you should keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
you'd think we might want to keep an eye on a site that claims by it's headline that it is:
"Equipping & Empowering Christians to Restore America's Biblical Foundation"
well, radical evangelical christians anyway.
Wesley R. Elsberry · 29 April 2005
Try using TinyURL.com to convert a long spammish-looking link to one that the blacklist here doesn't mind.
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 29 April 2005
Longhorm · 29 April 2005
Longhorm · 29 April 2005
Sir_Toejam · 29 April 2005
Longhorm:
have you volunteered to give talks on evolution at any public or private group function? ever debated the issue publically? You make it sound a lot easier than it really is.
in any case, it sounds like you are gung-ho, so why not give it a try? start small, maybe a meeting with folks from your local community maybe, and see how that goes.
stay away from the media until you are absolutely sure you can hold you own against the most riduculous questions, and you should do just fine.
If that goes well, you might consider using your knowlege of evolutionary theory to help out with your local secondary school educators. they seem to be asking for help, as far as i can tell.
go forth and spread the word (pardon the pun)
cheers
Longhorm · 29 April 2005
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 30 April 2005
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 30 April 2005
FL · 30 April 2005
Longhorm · 30 April 2005
Lurker · 30 April 2005
Longhorm,
For many people, if we say "evolution", they hear "atheist/materialist agenda brainwashing their children." Fundamentally, you have not proposed a solution to this problem. That is to say, people already reject evolution because there is an existing science/religion barrier that they have erected. Continuing to ping away at them with only science is just going to have facts bounce off of deaf ears. We're not building the wall, Longhorm, regardless of what we do. The wall is already there. The question is how to tear the wall down.
Sir_Toejam,
You asked me whether I would be willing to take the flak Eugenie is taking. The answer is no. I don't think anyone should be the highest profile anything in science. Science is fundamentally a collective effort. I refuse to believe Eugenie is prepared to be the Lone Ranger Advocate of Evolution. She is being put on a high pedestal, and applauding her to her demise is cruel.
What we need to do is to get the atheists to give up most of the limelight for the Christians. Atheists should continue to do what comes rather naturally to them -- namely, talk about the science, and do the natural research. But they should not involve themselves in "discussions" regarding problems that are fundamentally Christian in nature. Lenny Flank thinks 90% of the US population hates atheists. How smart, then, is it to have atheists tell Christians that they are wrong about their beliefs? In my opinion, Christian supporters should all be outraged at Eugenie's constant references to God.
That said, I do sense the complacency of mainstream Christians that Lenny Flank sees. Frankly, I think they feel that the outcome of this is inconsequential, both intellectually and politically. Christians in the US have allowed a fundamentalist sect to hijack their credibility and intellectual freedom when it comes to the sciences. And they have permitted this Trojan horse, because in the end, they merely see Christians fighting an evil atheist agenda, not a rotting of scientific thinking.
So what do we do? First things first. Cultural wars have proven absolutely ineffective in shutting down any scientific ideas for any decent amount of time. Stop acting like the end of the world is going to happen because one school somewhere is going to adopt some ridiculous sticker. If the US supremacy in scientific research (especially in the red-hot fields of biotechnology) slows down because of Creationists, then so be it. There are plenty of keen minds around the world ready to pick up the slack.
Sometimes, the best option is not to preempt and stop every Creationist activity. We really have no need to be so desperate as the Creationists are. We don't have to count every victory against them. We're really not responsible for what happens to their children. They are.
We all know that the American children are on average poorly educated in basic skills, whether in literacy, mathematics, or natural sciences. This is a problem that is larger than evolution skirmishes. Nor is it one that insisting on evolution policies is going to fix. I advocate picking our battles. If we demonstrate results, then I believe the rest of the country will naturally follow. So what do we do?
Let's go on the offensive for once. Let's pick our own set of school boards and insist on the highest quality science standards. Let's raise funds for these schools to use the most up to date textbooks and multimedia materials. Let's make electing school officials high priority/high media coverage events. Let's demonstrate that children from these systems go on and have better career potentials than chilrden elsewhere. Does that mean we drop our attention on Creationist activities? Sure. And it would be a good thing. Look at what we would accomplish in the meantime.
So, let's start covering our successes (not merely the premption of a potential threat). Let's start covering what well educated children can do. Let's start talking about their accomplishments given the opportunity to excel. For instance, let's follow up on some of these children: http://www.sciserv.org/sts/ . I would like to see someone here trade a blog entry here about some antievolution bill for a blog entry about just one of these science projects. Let's encourage children to be scientists and intellectuals.
In short, we've got to put our money where our collective mouth is. Does a good science education matter? It's hard to tell these days when we stretch ourselves so thin dealing with Creationists and anti-education forces in general. Let's pick our battles and set up a few model systems which achieve positive results. Think of it as a science experiment if you will. We have our hypotheses regarding the merits of a good science education, let's test them. In the meantime, I will continue to believe Creationist children are frankly not my problem. Nor do I believe they are yours. But it is absolutely our responsibility to help build alternatives we prefer. That may mean, in the meantime, having to say to ourselves creationists be damned.
Longhorm · 30 April 2005
Longhorm · 30 April 2005
Lurker · 30 April 2005
Longhorm,
In public acceptance of evolution in a pluralist society, education of children is most definitely NOT the key. Thinking otherwise is a mistake. As we have seen with these school board fights, we evolution supporters often do not get to dictate who teaches our children, nor do we get to decide what is taught to our children. Because the parents are the ones who want their children to be educated, it makes sense that the parents are the ones who have the most immediate influence on the education content of a child. They elect the representatives. They put out the tax dollars that pay for the schools.
The reality is that what we like to teach our children reflects what we collectively accept as true and useful in our lives. There is no such thing as an objective standard of educational content. So what do you do to convince those Creationist parents that evolution is worthy educational material? If you can't tear down that wall, continuing to preach science at them and their children is just going to be met with more resistance. I am of the firm belief that education policy is secondary to public understanding. If the public accepts, the education policies follow naturally.
By the way, I will observe that yours is the same talking point used by the Creationists. They too think that education is key, but with regards to acceptance of Christ. This sort of thinking, in my opinion, diminishes the value of education. It overly emphasizes what to think, rather than how to think. But, I am fully prepared to accept that I may be in the minority when it comes to education philosophy. Nevertheless, it is this perception that "education of children is key" towards public acceptance of science that has sidetracked most of our efforts towards useless debates with Creationists. Rather than deal with concrete results, both sides deal with hypothetical threats. By linking education and evolution, you overly politicize good science and thus render it impotent.
The key to public acceptance of science, especially in those groups that have trouble with the ideas, is to deal directly with the adults. You have to identify the reason why there is resistance to these ideas, and attack it at the source. I think it is an act of desperation to displace the problem and hoist it on children, thus making them shoulder the burden of this culture war. If you truly believe we have a handle on the truth of evolution, then there's nothing to worry. Culture wars come and go. Children will grow up and find out that their parents were wrong.
So, I cannot agree with you that the role of religion should be minimized when it comes to public discourse on evolution. There is no other reason why there is such resistance to it. Frankly, people's eyes start to roll when you just spill out the data. Furthermore, there's no way anyone of us has the mastery on all of the data to be able to summon it all upon demand. So, in the end, you end saying that you don't know to a lot of the demands, which in of itself is a political liability.
We should talk about God. But we should be clever about how we talk about God. Keith Miller is a great example. He has more than the right audience. He has the right message. He has a means of reconciling Christianity and the most difficult scientific results. The public should have more of these sessions. But, why do we have to wait until the Creationists and the IDists force a debate on us?
Meanwhile, we should not let the atheists do the dirty work of explaining to fundamentalists why their religion is warped. But that doesn't mean there aren't better candidates than atheists for the role of reconciling religion and science. We should turn to the clergy, and to the religiously influential. We should learn how intellectual fulfillment is part of spiritual fulfillment. And moreover, we should go on the offensive about this message.
How is this going to happen? It is not by making children our singular focus. Creationists be damned. The reason I am concerned is because I need other solutions than fighting school boards. I am prepared to concede the Creationist some ground in schools, provided that I know there are others out there who have well-defined, realistic alternatives for like-minded parents. If we all we're doing is react to Creationists, then they have truly succeeded in relegating us to a unending defensive posture. But if we demonstrate that we have truly a better solution (not merely a compromise), then can't we count on selection?
Longhorm · 30 April 2005
Longhorm · 30 April 2005
Sir_Toejam · 30 April 2005
Lurker said:
"In the meantime, I will continue to believe Creationist children are frankly not my problem. Nor do I believe they are yours. "
look, clearly you haven't been following this issue for very long if you think that.
creationist kids grow up to be creationist politicians or lawyers. Their "worldview" affects quite a lot at that point. I have seen the "creationist" attitude cause a measurable and marked decrease in funding for the sciences for the past 25 years. If you have no respect for science, because you were taught not to, then what do you think happens when they become judges, congressmen, or even our current president?
it is true that in the world of ideology, creationism don't mean squat, and i could care less about "creationist children". However, in the practical world, it means a great deal. I highly suggest you rethink just how critical this issue is.
Sir_Toejam · 30 April 2005
"In public acceptance of evolution in a pluralist society, education of children is most definitely NOT the key. Thinking otherwise is a mistake. As we have seen with these school board fights, we evolution supporters often do not get to dictate who teaches our children, nor do we get to decide what is taught to our children."
actually, that is COMPLETELY incorrect. how do you think science standards are determined to begin with? by popular vote?
"Because the parents are the ones who want their children to be educated, it makes sense that the parents are the ones who have the most immediate influence on the education content of a child. They elect the representatives. They put out the tax dollars that pay for the schools. "
...and this is why we DON'T have a democracy, we have a republic. do you understand the fundamental nature of why the US is a republic?
Look, your fundamental premise is wrong. this is NOT a plurastic society. I can understand why you might get that impression, but when you really stop and think about it, it simply can't be correct, can it.
It would seem there is a reason you think education is not that important. You were never taught why it is.
Lurker · 30 April 2005
Longhorm,
What almost all of us can agree on is that we teach children what we believe is accepted current knowledge that will be useful to them. Even Creationists will to a large extent adhere to this guideline. And it's a useful guideline. Where it breaks down is when someone possesses a belief system with which certain well accepted knowledge come in conflict. Then the guideline is useless. What you accept as hugely important is not shared by Creationists. In the end, you resort to a majoritarian rule of what is considered useful knowledge that children need. Not such a good heuristic, when the majority disagrees with you.
You cannot simply explain to someone who is unwilling to listen. Just look at this blog and the regular anti-evolutionist visitors. Do you think they are listening? The problem is that these people have erected a barrier that you cannot simply hack away with facts. Everyone, especially the most committed, has a great capacity for rationalizing conflicting data.
The only solution is to identify why these barriers are erected. We know this is a religiopolitical problem. It cannot be solved by science and scientists.
Was Scott wrong to discuss God? Yes. Because she lacked credibility in theological matters. And because her audience dislike her philosophy. But that does not mean no one should talk about God. That is simply ignoring the fundamental problem. Imagine having someone like Fr. Oakes on the other side of the Rev. Fox, instead of Eugenie Scott. Imagine him saying that Truths cannot contradict Truths. Imagine him providing testimony of his personal reconciliation with science. Imagine him explaining how his intellectual journey added to his own personal, spiritual fulfillment. Then, it would truly mean something to hear that Christians do not have to find evolution threatening. Then would you give someone a chance to understand the root of their disagreement with good science.
Longhorm, I do not believe you have shown that people should not talk about religion with regards to evolution. You have merely demonstrated that it is convenient to do so. But you lack a demonstration of effectiveness. What exactly could you accomplish by regurgitating the mountain of data supporting evolution? Sure, you'd catch a few Creationists in some awkward moment of being ill informed. But then what? Do you simply expect them to back down?
Public rejection of evolution in the US is very much a problem of Christian fundamentalism. It is therefore a religious issue. I don't know of a better way to deal with religious issues than to discuss them in religious terms. And I don't know of better equipped people than the Christians themselves. Christians potentially have a weekly continuing education program that extends beyond K-12 education. There is a huge resource for creating public understanding of difficult scientific issues. But, therein lies the crux of the matter. Do most Christians care enough to fight amongst themselves regarding this scientific issue? If mainstream Christians do not take up this cause, then who else should? The atheists like Eugenie Scott?
Paul Flocken · 30 April 2005
Lurker · 30 April 2005
Sir_Toejam,
My comments taken out of context would suggest that I believe teaching evolution is unimportant. That is wrong. I would not be having this discussion if I believed otherwise.
What I am talking about is a viable long-term strategy. Our present strategy of reacting to Creationist threats when they come appears ineffective. I am suggesting a more active approach.
The only way for such a strategy to work is to regroup our efforts towards attacking the problem at its source.
I am not afraid of the future, if we work today on public acceptance of evolution, in addition to teaching our children good science. What I sense is that the former is lacking. And without the former, you merely generate hostility by insisting on teaching children things that their parents do not want taught. You end up breeding the very Creationist lawyers and educators that you are trying to quash today.
The truth of the matter is that you do not wipe out minorities by force. You marginalize them by making it easier for them to integrate with mainstream culture. They disappear because there is no longer a subculture that is willing to nurture their differences with the rest of society.
This is the exact problem with Creationists. You can't fight them all on legal grounds. Just look at all the trouble _one_ institution in Seattle is able to cause. Without trying to integrate this fundamentalist Christian subculture, all you're doing is fueling their cause. And when you have an energized extremist group, that's when I'll be worried about Creationist lawyeres and educators.
Let me summarize. I am not arguing that we talk religion in lieu of teaching evolution. Not at all. I am arguing that we talk religion in addition to teaching evolution. We may suffer some setbacks now, but in the long run, cultural integration is what is going to solve this problem. It is the harder road to take. But who ever said the important things were ever easy?
Lurker · 30 April 2005
Paul Flocken,
Good point. Let me put my spin on it this way. Public education is at least as important as education of children. I would say that it is more so when it comes to evolution. You cannot do one without the other. If you solve public acceptance of good science, I should think you solve the same education problem for children.
So how does one educate the public at large, when they are out of school? I think that's a difficult question that is often lost when the focus is completely on the K-12 systems.
Sir_Toejam · 30 April 2005
"Just look at all the trouble _one_ institution in Seattle is able to cause"
hardly. the DI is only a symptom.
"I am arguing that we talk religion in addition to teaching evolution. "
fine and dandy. talk religion in church and evolution in schools.
if someone in church want to know more about evolution, easy enough to learn; if someone in school wants to more about religion, well we have churches now don't we.
You don't see evolutionists going to churches and suggesting they change their doctrines, why should evangelical christians be allowed to change the standards and practice of science?
In over 500 years, we have not been able to "marginalize" creationists, because of the way politics works. those that scream the loudest, set the tone of debate.
"And when you have an energized extremist group, that's when I'll be worried about Creationist lawyeres and educators."
lol. i got news fer ya, you should already be worried then.
Lurker · 30 April 2005
Well, Sir_toejam, I guess I have more faith in the Creationists than you do. I do not believe that they are extremists. I simply believe that our approach towards getting them to accept evolution has been poorly though out.
That said, if someone in a church wanted to know more about evolution, I do not believe that it is "easy enough to learn." There are significant social barriers to such an act. Compounding this problem is that spiritual leaders have more exposure to a Church-going Christian than a biology teacher has with a child. It is not as if Church leaders actively seek out biologists to catch up on their understanding of evolution, before they deliver the next Sunday sermon on Genesis 1:1.
But the larger problem is that I do not sense Christian biologists in a church actively seeking out their Church leaders to talk about science. They do take what you're suggesting to hear, Sir_Toejam. The Church is a place for only spiritual fulfillment. And the school/universities are the only place for intellectual fulfillment. I think this dichotomy is wrong. It must be remedied. What do you think?
Sir_Toejam · 30 April 2005
I would ask then, why you think the dichotomy exists to begin with?
I once had a conversation with a professor who mentioned a peer of his who was a great scientist. At night this friend of his would go out and participate in religious expressionism that would shame a southern baptist. bordering on pure hedonism, based on the description. the next day, he was back to standard biology; you'd never guess what he did at night based on what he published during the day.
to me, this goes a long way towards explaining why the dichotomy exists, and should continue to do so.
the most interesting experince I personally had along these lines was discussion of evolutionary theory with a lutheran pastor who was getting an advanced degree in theology at UC Santa Barbara.
behind the scenes, we had many productive discussions. Did this translate into any of the sermons he gave during his services?
what do you think?
Sir_Toejam · 30 April 2005
I would ask then, why you think the dichotomy exists to begin with?
I once had a conversation with a professor who mentioned a peer of his who was a great scientist. At night this friend of his would go out and participate in religious expressionism that would shame a southern baptist. bordering on pure hedonism, based on the description. the next day, he was back to standard biology; you'd never guess what he did at night based on what he published during the day.
to me, this goes a long way towards explaining why the dichotomy exists, and should continue to do so.
the most interesting experince I personally had along these lines was discussion of evolutionary theory with a lutheran pastor who was getting an advanced degree in theology at UC Santa Barbara.
behind the scenes, we had many productive discussions. Did this translate into any of the sermons he gave during his services?
what do you think?
Longhorm · 30 April 2005
Jim Harrison · 30 April 2005
Everybody is afraid of the religious right. I think we ought to call their bluff. A lot of Americans, believers and skeptics alike, are pretty uncomfortable with people eager to tell them what to think and how to live. From the point of view of the TV evangelists and theological fascists tolerance for traditional religion implies tolerance for religious intolerance. And it isn't just the freedom of teachers and scientists they want to limit or what we're allowed to see on television. They want into our bedrooms, too. The hell with that.
steve · 30 April 2005
Lurker · 30 April 2005
Longhorm,
I think we both agree that there is appropriate forum for a particular topic between qualified actors. I think we may even agree that national TV is a bad place to enflame relgious tension with science. But at some point the issue of religion and evolution has got to be addressed. I do not share your concern that discussion religion in the context of evolution will turn off people from the subject. On the contrary, I think by engaging them, some truths will be imparted. If people will learn a few facts about evolution in the process, and yet still disagree about the theological implications, then I believe we will have made some progress. I just do not see any progress made if nothing at all is spoken. That said, I agree that you have to speak to your strengths. If you are not religious, do not pretend to understand the difficulties religious people may have. If you are not a scientists, do not pretend to have mastery over the scientific data. At some point you have to rely on your experiences to guide how to deal with Creationists.
Sir_Toejam,
I think the Lutheran pastor should incorporate some of your discussions into his sermons. I hope he does. But as Longhorm and I are discussing, he should only bring this up in an appropriate context. Sermons are informed by current events are they not? Should a pastor help his flock understand how to cope with scientific data that may superficially appear to contradict one's faith? Should a pastor make an informed opinion by talking with experts in the conflicting science? I would answer affirmatively to both.
In the end, I believe both science and religion are a continuum of human reasoning. Any demarcation we make is rather artificial. Trying to enforce the demarcation is in my opinion futile. That said, people do find their intellectual niches. Some in theology. Others in natural sciences. But at some point, you will need the reality checks of the other forms of human reasoning. We cannot merely conjure up reality by one-sided thinking. For some this idea is easy to grasp. For others they will need more help. I personally do not subscribe to the concept of non-overlapping magesteria. At the same time, I think that, though the overlap is quite small, the overlap is extremely important to public acceptance of long held ideas and beliefs.
Sir_Toejam · 30 April 2005
" If the Dems were capable of strongly expressing liberal enlightenment values..."
that's just it; it's always easier to say "goddidit" than it is to explain the reality of a given situation.
It will always be harder to maintain the position that is harder to explain.
simple logic.
It is why the conservatives have so jumped on the evangelical christian bandwagon; it makes for a great powerbase simply because the messages are so simplistic.
Paul Flocken · 30 April 2005
"(I would put this on the Bathroom Wall, but that's become a cage for JAD, and I doubt many people go there anymore.)"
What an excellent metaphor for it.
Jim Harrison · 30 April 2005
I don't disagree with Steve's commends, but I'd put things more simply: Most Americans don't know what the Enlightenment was; but they don't like to be bossed around. If you want microphones under your bed, vote Republican. Time to recall such authentically American voices as Mark Twain and Ingersoll.
Freedom of religion is nothing at all without freedom from religion. It won't just be the atheists who are effectively disenfranchised once these guys really get going.
steve · 30 April 2005
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 30 April 2005
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 30 April 2005
Longhorm · 30 April 2005
Sir_Toejam · 30 April 2005
"Teaching science to people is all well and good and laudable and all that. But it won't beat the fundies."
it's not supposed to. it's IS supposed to make it so there are fewer of them.
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 30 April 2005
Lurker · 30 April 2005
Longhorm,
If all we worry about is offending people then nothing is ever going to be solved. What is reported about this past election is that religious conservatives are more at ease with religious language and religious issues than moderates and liberals. The conservatives are not worried about offending sensibilities. Why should we not return the favor with our own agenda? More importantly why should we allow them to dictate the religious discourse in this country?
I think that the religious conservative would nothing less than adopt your strategy. They pretend to talk all about the science. And they want everyone to think that's exactly all they do with ID. How far have they gotten with that strategy? Anyone can see straight through this rhetorical device, precisely because it is so transparent that they are attempting to substitute pseudo-scientific talk with religion.
We should not make this same mistake over and over. We should not attack a religious/theological problem with science, no more than attack a science with bad theology. It hurts the science.
That said, there are times when we should talk about only the science. And I agree that in those situations, we start with the science, and then work our way down to the cultural issues. For one thing, many evolution proponents that I have met really could use a remedial course on the scientific nuances, and the latest theories. We should encourage these seminars. Hell, we shouldn't have to stop at evolution. We should do this ideally for all the sciences... whether it is string theory, or stem cell research, artifical intelligence... name your favorite cutting-edge research topic.
But I firmly believe talking evolution is no longer sufficient. For one thing, I think you'd have problem getting the fundamentalists to attend such events. So how are you going to get across dissemination of scientific data if they don't come to listen to you? Should you, for instance, accept these "debate" proposals from the DI? Should you take a street evangelism approach, and hand out evolution pamphlets? If you want to talk evolution to Creationists, you have to at least identify the forum where you can get the Creationists together. Otherwise, you'd only be preaching to the choir, or to none at all.
I think it is more effective to take this religious dilemma directly to its source. I think you need Christians to start talking every so often to their spiritual leaders about science. I think they should start preaching to the choir and energize them about intellectual fulfilling activities. Creationists be damned. Christians should reclaim the intellectual credibility that's been hijacked by Creationists.
Sir_Toejam · 30 April 2005
"It's failing, then. "
agreed, most assuredly. but perhaps not because it has been tried and failed, but because it hasn't really been tried.
think about all the secondary level educators that have abandoned even trying to teach correct evolutionary theory, simply because they want to avoid external pressures.
I could certainly be wrong, but i don't think evolution is being taught correctly in most of our secondary schools to begin with.
it's a complicated issue to explain to adults, let alone teenagers, and i doubt most high school biology teachers are well versed in the literature to begin with.
hence i keep making the argument that we need to act as resources for the places where education on this issue really counts, at the secondary level.
It's possible that it has been tried before, and failed miserably. I'm still looking into that. But I can't simply dismiss the value of outreach in this area so easily.
We should perhaps break down the secondary school statistics based on region, and maybe even district, to see if there are large differences that appear in high school graduates from different areas, with different qualitative or quantitative instruction on the issue. If it turns out that it makes no difference whether evolutionary theory is taught correctly or not in the final statistics of high school grads that accept the theory or not, I would certainly agree that there is no reason to pursue this type of outreach.
Can you think of a way to access those kinds of statistics?
cheers
Sir_Toejam · 30 April 2005
"Should you take a street evangelism approach, and hand out evolution pamphlets?"
lol. you know, a friend of mine developed just such a thing once, and proposed we go like Jehova's witnesses door to door. He was curious as to what the reaction would be.
He left the area soon after, but to this day i too wonder what the reaction would have been.
"excuse me, sir, would you have time to hear about the wonder of evolution?"
Sir_Toejam · 30 April 2005
"Creationists be damned. Christians should reclaim the intellectual credibility that's been hijacked by Creationists."
back to square one - I don't disagree necessarily with your premise here, but you need to figure out how to motivate christians who apparently could care less if their credibility has been hijacked.
I was watching Bill Mahr the other night, and he was railing on the demos on pretty much just this issue.
he asked barbara boxer why the hell the demos have let the right have the religious spotlight?
I'd guess that typically, moderate christians who support demos don't like to scream about their religion.
If you could find a way to get the message across that they (moderates) have as much to lose as scientists do, that would be just fine and dandy from my perspective.
I just want it to be clear these are discussions of religious freedom, that have nothing to do with science.
Jim Harrison · 30 April 2005
For a lot of us, it would be the rankest hypocrisy to pretend that we share many of the beliefs of Christians; but that's not the point. We don't have the same ideas but in many cases we have the same interests. For example, I don't want to be a second-class citizen because I'm not a Christian; but lots of Christians don't want their religion to be enforced by Caesar. Theocracy is no more appetizing to spiritual people than it is to us infidels. Meanwhile, while we're on a kick of being sincere, we might point out that we really, really believe in freedom of conscience for everybody whereas the religious right does not.
Longhorm · 1 May 2005
Paul Flocken · 1 May 2005
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank made the comment, "I have no problem with shredding the creationists/IDers (indeed I quite enjoy it). But I think "debating" them in a public forum just gives them another chance to raise money, rally the troops, and gain a patina of respectability that they don't in fact deserve."
To which FL responded, "Not to mention the presumably remote possibility of them soundly trouncing you in front of inquisitive, smiling media representatives. Safety first, folks!"
FL, your response is less than clever, considering that Lenny Flank is right in another regard that he didn't mention. Because the creationists have no shame about breaking a certain commandment about bearing false witness, things like this happen in front of "inquisitive, smiling [stab you in the back] media representatives".
Dawkins take on , Dirty Camera Editing Tricks and the Video
Remember, their goal is not to determine truth(small t), since they don't have any, but to make evolutionists look bad. They are constantly adding to their bag of dirty tricks and it is not always possible to be up to date on all of them. Even the best, like Lenny Flank, or the most famous, like Scott and Dawkins, can't be expected to keep track of all of it. Giving them the chance to make us look like imbeciles because we aren't up on the current "Creationist Claptrap of the Week", or the chance to be outright dishonest with video and editing tricks, is pointless.
Which is why Lenny Flank is right to point out, "Why have creationists and IDers lost every single Federal court case they have ever been involved with. Every single one. Why haven't they been able to trounce those evilutionists in front of inquisitive, smiling judges."
If you try to pull that crap in front of a judge, you and/or your lawyer, but most likely your lawyer, could face contempt. Would any of the lawyers who read PT like to let us know how much patience judges have? Could they also let us know what a contempt charge means to a lawyer's career? I'm curious to know if it is a serious thing.
But, anyway, don't play to their strengths in forums of their choosing.
Sincerely, Paul
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 1 May 2005
Lurker · 1 May 2005
Longhorm,
I don't think we disagree on much. At the core, we are going to have to rely on people with motivations like yours, people who are strictly interested in the scientific message of evolution and who are interested in refining the message so that it is more effective. I am just arguing that at some point someone has to turn back the theological anti-evolution rhetoric with theological pro-evolution rhetoric.
We both have the same underlying problems in reaching our goals. One is that it is rare for a biologist to command a large audience of anti-evolutionist, especially in a forum that is neutral and balanced. Unless you are a professor delivering a lecture, I can think of no other situations where the scientific message can be detailed for the public audience. Can you? If so, then you would be right with your approach. Let's have more of these public forums sponsored and held. Let's drown out the ID "debates". If not, then you have yet to explain how to get anti-evolutionists to hear you out. Anti-evolutionists severely outnumber knowledgeable scientists, as you may know. Doing this on one-on-one basis seems ineffective.
The other problem, is that for every positive scientific message we send out, there is an opposite religious message that is holding people back. These messages we have no control over, if we do not deal with them at the source. For every lecture in the biology department about evolutionary theory, there is an antievolutionist sitting in Church, talking about his fears of the atheist/materialist agenda. What do you do about these cultural issues? Can you simply assert to them that it is not an atheist/materialist agenda? We have not come to a conclusion about how to deal with this.
Hearing, in effect, "no you are wrong" is something that Creationists have grown quite accustomed to. I don't see what you plan to accomplish by saying it a lot more times. To be sure, we need to continue saying no, you are wrong. But there are not enough of us that have mastery of much of the facts, nor have the time to make this exercise worthwhile. In effect, I sense an extremely passive and reactionary stance from your proposals. You have yet to show me more than merely _responding_ to Creationist lies. T.O. and PT have both adopted reactionary roles. Yet we continue to host the same anti-evolutionists. Perhaps you can demonstrate the effectiveness of your strategy here on this blog?
You asked what I meant about not using good science to attack bad theology. I am speaking, of course, about the resistance that anti-science people develop when all they hear is the science. They have a mental barrier that is fundamentally informed by their bad theology. It is a force field. The harder you push, the harder they push back. I am suggesting that you try attacking with scientific facts and credible religious messages. Did God just poof things into existence? No, you say. But you leave it at that. There's a rich religious story to incorporate into the evolution story. You make no effort to meet the religious half-way. Was Mary's egg cell fertilized by a man's egg cell? It must have been, you say. But you leave hanging the theological implications that Mary's conception was merely a natural act. Once again, you make no effort to meet the religious half-way. When someone suggests that "God turned dust into elephants," your curt rebuttal uses God, but in a manner that restricts God's role. At this point, God has already been brought into the picture. It is a theological dispute, whether you like it or not. You have to meet them half way. Explain how God could have done it through evolution. Explain how this does not conflict with Genesis.
Essentially, it is a perception issue, Longhorm. You may not intend good science to be a pseudo-theological weapon. But when you say "evolution" you have not stopped people from hearing "atheist/materialist agendae." Similarly, when the DI speaks "intelligent design" they cannot stop any of us from hearing "fundamentalist Christian agendae". Just as the DI are perceived to be using theology as a pseudo-scientific weapon, we are perceived to be using science as a pseudo-theological weapon. But we're not in such a bad shape as the DI, which has to rely on a warped scientific and theological message. We simply have a latent mainstream theological message that we are not making use of. Isn't it about time?
Sir_Toejam · 1 May 2005
"Mary's egg cell fertilized by a man's egg cell? "
certainly not, men don't have eggs.
;)
look, as i said before, if you want to talk about the "wrongness" of evangelical YEC from a purely religious standpoint, more power to you. However, as you said, these aren't matters for scientists.
You won't find many here who can take up your banner, or that even should.
You need to approach your local religious institutions, and tell THEM that it is time to stand up against the evangelicals, or they will be just as much in danger as the scientists are.
Your message should be pure and clear about the political and religious problems YEC's are creating for the majority of the christian community. But this is the wrong audience for your message.
cheers
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 1 May 2005
Lurker · 1 May 2005
Sir_Toejam,
I am really tired of hearing scientists isolate themselves as some privileged class beyond politics and religious concerns. If this is really the wrong audience for my message, then I don't know what is. Go to my church? What about your church and other churches? And who should go? That's the whole crux of my posts. I am specifically asking Christian scientists (not atheists, nor atheist scientists) to talk about their religious reconciliation of science and faith to other people who share their faith. How could you possibly rephrase that request into "these aren't matters for scientists?" Have I really been spelling out the wrong message because I've been merely exchanging ideas with atheists all this time? Stupid me.
It's not an either-or solution, people. This audience is missing half of the ball game if it thinks it can just tackle the problem scientifically and ignore the religious nature of the problem. When the contributors of this blog do not even reflect the 90% Christian make-up of the nation, how exactly are they projecting credibility to 90% of the lay audience who do not trust them? Where are the religious commentators, for instance, on this board? Is this truly an atheist echo chamber?
Well, I feel that I have outlasted my welcome on this thread. Thank you all for indulging me this weekend.
Wesley R. Elsberry · 1 May 2005
Lurker · 1 May 2005
Gee, Wesley, perhaps you can point exactly what I was wrong about so that I can apologize to you directly. I am used to Creationists playing the semantics game so that they can dodge the general gist of a claim, and that has given me practice to recognize your overinterpreting the word "perhaps." Eugenie was not cited by Nature for anything else but being a "most high profile Darwinist." Perhaps?
Is that what you are going to use to refute my claim that people _perceive_ Eugenie to be a high profile Darwinist. A perhaps? Come on. Is it a good thing that Eugenie Scott and the words "most high profile Darwinist" be put in such juxtaposition? Can "perhaps" save the portrait painted by Nature?
Well, I guess I can rest easy tonight, being among the scientists that 68% of the public trusts. And with professionals like Wesley taking care of the anti-evolutionists for me, gosh, maybe I'll go get drunk and party as well.
steve · 1 May 2005
Math is also not Lurk's strong suit.
Sir_Toejam · 1 May 2005
Lurker:
"I am really tired of hearing scientists isolate themselves as some privileged class beyond politics and religious concerns."
it has nothing to do with "priviledge" it is just "different". Would you approach an economist to speak about threats to religion? No, you would approach it from your religious community.
"It's not an either-or solution, people. This audience is missing half of the ball game if it thinks it can just tackle the problem scientifically and ignore the religious nature of the problem. "
you misunderstand. scientists aren't lumped into one "religious camp" any more than non-scientists are. it would be pointless to approach scientists and ask them to argue a specific religious viewpoint (and as bad a case as the IDers trying to do the same!). scientists are hard pressed to make the arguments about science, let alone religion. Hell, it is one of the things we use AGAINST the IDers, to show that their movement has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with religion.
again, i tell you, your best bet is to handle this from a purely religious perspective.
You brought up a very valid point that the majority of christians seem to be letting the creationists speak for them (hell, i even posted a quick search to support that argument). However, you can't ask scientists to legitimately argue a religious postion.
science deals with the measureable, and predictions from the measureable. the rest we simply answer: "unknown".
throughout history, few people are able to accept that answer, hence there have developed all sorts of ways of coping with what is "unknown", religion arguably being the most common. You can't now ask science to address the relative merits of methods of dealing with "unkown". Scientists will only deal with issues of methods of coping with the unknown, when they begin to interfere with the best way of dealing with the measurable (which has a great track record, btw).
However, you can certainly address the issue of one way of dealing with the unknown interefering with another way of doing the same. No religion or philisophy should have a monopoly on dealing with the unknown.
does this make more sense to you? do you see why it is innapropriate to ask a scientists to deal with issues of religion vs. religion?
got nothing to do with personal beliefs.
Lurker · 1 May 2005
Sir_toejam,
Some scientists are religious. If we ever need narratives of how one can reconcile science and faith, we have to go to those scientists who have done so. How else should we explain to others that evolution is not a religious problem?
Look, I am not asking scientists to stand behind the pulpit and give sermons. You are probably right that scientists would not be credible preachers. But providing personal testimony is a strong element of Christianity and Christian evangelism. I simply do not hear evolution as part of the religious dialogue amongst Christian scientists. Maybe it is just my experience.
Christian scientists are also the best source for providing solid scientific facts to Christian religious leaders. I adovcate that they keep communicating with their leaders about these topics. It should start now, before science advances faster than religion can figure out how to keep up.
I don't understand how such requests have been blown so out of whack. Scientists should not pretend to be theologians. I agree. But Christian scientists are both Christian and scientists. We need to hear from them how that such a combination is possible.
Well, I do have personal matters to take care of. This has been a good weekend for me, and I do plan to keep it that way before the work week begins. Take care all.
Sir_Toejam · 1 May 2005
"If we ever need narratives of how one can reconcile science and faith"
that's the point you keep missing. if you understand the relative roles of both, there is nothing that needs resolving.
"I don't understand how such requests have been blown so out of whack. Scientists should not pretend to be theologians. I agree. But Christian scientists are both Christian and scientists. We need to hear from them how that such a combination is possible."
you just did. However, just like a lot of people, you don't seem to be listening.
Paul Flocken · 1 May 2005
It is important to seek out the correct audience for the message you are trying to convey.
It is important to know the audience you are trying to convince.
It is important that you tailor your message carefully, cognizant of the knowledge(or ignorance) level of your audience and their prejudices and predispositions.
It is important to put the most credible spokesperson, for that audience, in front of them.
Is this a good summary? Please don't get bogged down in the nits. Sincerely, PaulPaul Flocken · 1 May 2005
Oh yeah, I know they don't add up to 100%. Go figure.
Wesley R. Elsberry · 1 May 2005
Sir_Toejam · 1 May 2005
god i hate those nits, way more irritating than mosquitos.
Paul Flocken · 1 May 2005
I suppose I could add one more:
It is important that the spokesperson speak on what they know and not venture into areas the audience would distrust them speaking on.
Paul
Paul Flocken · 1 May 2005
Sir Toejam,
I have neither time nor money, and an education that could only elicit derisive snorts; but I will read your google group proposal, and am at your service.
Sincerely, Paul
Wesley R. Elsberry · 1 May 2005
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 1 May 2005
Longhorm · 1 May 2005
Sir_Toejam · 1 May 2005
"but I will read your google group proposal"
thanks, Paul. commentary is not just desired, but essential at this point in the development of this idea.
cheers
Sir_Toejam · 1 May 2005
" Unfortunately, no one seems all that motivated to organize to beat them"
Are you trying to say there are no political organizations in support of evolutionary theory, or that the ones that do exist, like AAAS are innefective?
could you specify the gap for us Lenny? I would certainly climb on board if you can identify a gap that needs to be filled and come up with an idea to do so.
Sir_Toejam · 1 May 2005
Longhorm:
"The other day, I had someone tell me that the universe is about 6,000 years old. It's not. And the other day, I had someone tell me that John Elway never won a Super Bowl. He has. He won two --- one against Green Bay and the other against Atlanta. "
ahhh, but there is a grand difference between the two examples given. do you know what it is?
as to the rest, sorry for any confusion; i was directing my comments at Lurker, not yourself.
cheers
Longhorm · 1 May 2005
Sir_Toejam · 1 May 2005
no. it's that one is used by some people in order to support their religious belief structure, and the other is not.
I've lost track of whether it was in this thread or another, but someone on PT said they had a public debate with a YEC who admitted his mistakes, but then in the very next conversation completely repeated them.
sometimes, you simply CAN'T convince someone of the correctness of your argument, because accepting your point of view would somehow compromise their entire belief structure.
that's the difference between trying to convince a YEC that the world is older than 6000 years, and trying to convince someone that the broncos won back to back superbowls.
Longhorm · 1 May 2005
Sir_Toejam · 1 May 2005
"So don't give up hope."
heh. I'm close, but i haven't quite yet. let's just say i'm packing my bags, just in case.
Wesley R. Elsberry · 1 May 2005
steve · 1 May 2005
Is this sort of another version of talkorigins.org/indexcc? It would be good to have a totally comprehensive linkable list of creationist claims.
Wesley R. Elsberry · 1 May 2005
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 2 May 2005
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 2 May 2005
Longhorm · 2 May 2005
Sir_Toejam · 2 May 2005
@Longhorm:
" So, I think evolution --- and teaching students how the think critically --- should be the center focus of our public schools science curricula. It should be in the spotlight. In my elementary school, junior high and high school biology classes, we learned a little about cells and dissected some frogs. I guess that was sort of interesting, but it never really got be excited about learning about the universe. We never got into evolution. If evolution and evolutionary theory had been the focus of my public school science courses, I would have been totally enthusiastic about learning about the universe."
I agree with you, hence the ngo i proposed, but Lenny has a good point as well. the political will on the science side of this issue seems to be a bit spineless (just looking at democratic positions on the issue). I'm not convinced that AAAS is not doing its job, but I see room for someone lighting a fire under the demos asses.
I see Lenny as being the perfect person to come up with a way to do that.
I spent my time in the political arena, working for ngo's trying to establish more support for research. I'm now leaning more towards education. However, if you, Lenny, have any good ideas for how to motivate politicians to get off their collective ass on this issue, I'm all ears.
cheers
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 2 May 2005
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 2 May 2005
Sir_Toejam · 2 May 2005
Thanks, Lenny.
overall, your idea has a lot of appeal; especially the 'take it to em' aspect of it. I've voiced specific concerns below. In general, i'll start off by saying that I'm no lawyer, so it would be best to get someone who knows better to comment on the legal strategy.
general questions:
Would legal action on this issue be best taken by an independent organization, or through a pre-existing one?
How would legal fees be provided for; or would you be looking for pro-bono work from like-minded lawyers?
How would we select which districts meet the criteria (i mean this from a purely practical standpoint)?
specifics:
"While some states have very strong
detailed standards and others have brief ambiguous ones,
the fact remains that they have decided that evolution is an
important part of biology and must be taught as part of any
good science education."
true, but if school districts suddenly have to provide funding to defend against lawsuits, there could be a lot of pressure put on states to change the standards, yes? perhaps not terribly likely, but a high pressure strategy could backfire in this regard, or am i wrong?
"Creationists, on the other hand, have still been able to
intimidate many local schools into dropping mention of
evolution as "too controversial", and this local base of
support is the only thing holding the creationists up right
now.
So I propose we kill it."
would it be worthwhile into looking into suing the IDers who are putting pressure on specific districts to violate state standards? I'm always one for forcing folks to "put their money where their mouth is".
"(4) it will negate the fundie's power in local school board
elections by making those elections irrelevant to the issue --- state school standards apply to every school in the state, and those districts MUST comply, no matter WHAT their
local school board wants to do. Even if the fundies capture
the entire local school board and they ALL vote to drop
evolution, they can't do it --- they *must* comply with the
state education standards."
i'm not so sure about this. often times, the illogical only need sufficient provocation to claim they are now being "persecuted" and gain even more support. which might then translate into state-wide efforts to change the science standards.
"At that point, the fundies will have a choice; they can either choose to contest us in each and every state, which will lead into a long drawn out legal fight for them which will drain their resources and disrupt their own plans, all for a fight that they cannot possibly win anyway; or they can choose to not waste their resources and to cede the field to us, giving up their influence in local districts. Either choice makes me happy. We win either way, they lose either way."
well, as far as draining resources goes, that could work both ways. don't they have ahmanson on their side?
which brings up an interesting question... where ARE these folks getting funding for their frivolous lawsuits from?
"It's time we stop being defensive with them and go on the attack, forcing them to react to *us*."
I would certainly like to be seeing some asses getting kicked on their side, that's for sure.
cheers