Kristine Harley attended James Curtsinger‘s lecture at UMTC last night, and passed along an abbreviated copy of her notes. I wish I could have gone—it sounds like it was an informative evening—but living out here in the wilderness, I have to plan those long drives into the Big City with some care.
Curtsinger’s talk was only very loosely organized around the theme of “ten things,” and was mostly a comprehensive overview of the various forms of creationism from Archbishop Ussher (1581-1656) to Michael Behe’s embarrassing performance at the Dover trial. I would say that there were around 20-25 people in attendance, most of them members of the organization and U of M students (unlike me, an alumna). He covered a great deal of historical ground that will be familiar to those of us who know the history of American creationism, which he admitted was, for him, “oddly stimulating, like Victorian pornography.”
He first made the distinction between “young earth” and “old earth” creationists, and described Ussher’s backdating of the earth to 4004 BCE. To the surprise of many in the audience, he mentioned that William Jennings Bryan was actually not a young earth creationist. However, Young-Earth Creationism experience a resurgence in the 1960s with the help of Henry Morris and Duane Gish, men of some learning who came up with the theory of the biblical Flood causing fossils to be deposited through a combination of hydrologic sorting (marine invertebrates that lived in the lower elevations ended up in the lower strata, etc.), differential escape (human fossils were found last because they ran uphill to escape the floodwaters, etc.), and ecological zonation. He went on to describe the various problems with this theory.
He went through the Arkansas “Balanced Treatment Act” of 1981 and the Louisiana Creatonism Act of 1981, both of which were struck down, and the latter appealed to the Supreme Court where it was ruled unconstitutional. He went on to summarize the history of Intelligent Design and the most prominent personalities in the movement (Johnson, Dembski, Behe) as well as Dr. Dean Kenyon and Dr. Chris Macosko, their biographies, their arguments, and the problems with their conclusions.
Curtsinger stated that the real battleground for adequate science instruction in the United States is in the public high schools for one really good reasonâthe parents of the children who attend these schools have real influence over the curriculum. Curtsinger noted with alarm that, by the time a student has reached the sophomore level in college, his or her beliefs about evolution have been solidified, so that it is imperative that evolution is taught, and taught properly, in our nation’s high schools. While Curtsinger is not opposed to students exploring their own beliefs and values, and asking questions about creationism in a social or historical context even in high school, he notes that 20% of Minnesota public high school biology teachers teach creationism as science, which is illegal.
His most controversial point, that “Evangelical atheists make the problem worse,” was heard with a great deal of openness and even sympathy from this group and from me. I was initially troubled when I read this statement in the online calendar, but came away willing to accede his position. Curtsinger expressed himself well on this point. He noted that this was a very personal concern for him. I do not have the expertise to agree or dispute his assertion that Richard Dawkins “was never a particularly important scientist,” but I cannot disagree that Dawkins is “an aggressive atheist” who does “hit people over the head” with his disgust for religious superstition (how should I deny this when I admire Dawkins for it?).
Curtsinger called Richard Lewontin “a friend of mine, and a very important scientist” who nevertheless has stated (according to Curtsinger) that, “The purpose of science is to eliminate God from human consciousness.” Well, yesânaturally I don’t agree that that is the purpose of science, no matter how much I wish it would happen. Science is not about “Truth” with a capital “t” as is so often proclaimed by troubled deists and other philosophical romantics, so therefore it is not about “disproving God” either, although I certainly think that the methodical accounting for phenomena renders supernaturalist claims more and more dubious. Of course such a statement by Lewontin would “provide ammunition for Johnson,” and for people like him and the Discovery Institute. The group in attendance were, naturally, most if not all atheists, and I do not agree that if atheists disappeared from the earth tomorrow the creationists would likewise go out of business (far from it!) but I took Curtsinger’s point to mean, “Don’t make enemies unnecessarily.” Point taken. There are theists out there who accept the reality of evolution.
Curtsinger wrapped up with a summary on why universities are not generally in a good position to help on the issue. Professors are rewarded for the research, for which they spend a good 50% of their time, and for their teaching, which accounts for 40%, leaving a whopping 10% left for outreachâhowever one wants to go about doing that. Most science faculty pay little or no attention to creationism, anyway, allowing the problem to fester. What is needed are scientists working together with high school educators and with concerned citizensâatheists and theists alike.
Curtsinger wrapped up with a dig at Pat Robertson’s “God will smite thee” quote, and encouraged everyone to check out H.L. Mencken’s obituary for William Jennings Bryan to see how well it fits Robertson. Curtsinger also stated that he was, with Ed Hessler of Hamline University and Judy Boudreau of Minnetonka, forming the Minnesota Citizens for Science Education. He received a lot of applause and there was a good Q-and-A afterward. I spoke with Curtsinger afterward about our volunteer programs at the museum, in which we partner with the Minneapolis Public Schools to have trained facilitators visit the classroom and lead discussions that employ and teach critical thinking. These programs are arts-based, but I asked Curtsinger if it would be beneficial for universities to have similar volunteers make high school classroom visits to facilitate discussions with the students about science, stereotypes, evolution, and other subjects. Curtsinger seemed very enthusiastic about the idea and I left my contact information with him.
I think the most important point there is that the problem sets in long before the students get to college, and where we need to take action is with public school teachers and parents. I’m glad to hear that there is a science education advocacy group forming, and those three will be excellent people to lead it.
Kristine – Thanks a lot for sharing the notes with those of us who couldn’t attend!
You’re very welcome. And hey, twist my arm to make me ride our Light Rail. :)
So is there a place for PZ at the Minnesota Citizens for Science Education or are they too afraid that you’ll sprout horns and try to deconvert the kiddies?
While Dawkins may not be that important as a researcher, he is a first-rate popularizer and must have turned many people onto scientific thinking (especially evolutionary biology). He does sometimes push a little too hard, but usually his points are pretty close to the mark – I think most criticism comes from those who’d like to pretend that there’s no conflict between religion and science and that they each have their own ‘ways of knowing’. By showing this for the nonsense it is, Dawkins takes a lot of flak, but his courage in standing his ground should certainly be admired.
Here’s the thing: I don’t think Dawkins pushes hard enough. I hear all these requests for greater leniency towards religion, and they’re incomprehensible to me: why? If we want to promote reason and rationality, why draw this arbitrary line and say, “Well, we don’t question the belief in an invisible anthropomorphic being with supernatural powers…at least not if it’s Jehovah or Allah. We can criticize other irrational beliefs.”
It’s like looking at obesity and trying to figure out ways to correct it, but we’ve got this widespread reluctance about mentioning the obvious strategies of dealing with diet and exercise — instead, everyone is talking around the problem. I’m not talking about picking on the fat person or discriminating against them or that there aren’t multiple factors that contribute to obesity: I’m just saying that it’s a problem that for most people should be addressed directly.
Same with religion. It’s OK for people to choose to be religious, and some people may be incapable of being irreligious…but let’s face facts. For most people, it’s a case of casual excess, bad habits, and the easy availability of the empty calories of superstitious nonsense. We need more people advocating healthy intellectual nutrition.
PZ, my own opinion is we are now a disfunctional society. We value sports and movie stars, and singers as heros to emulate. Intellegence or smarts makes you a dweeb or geek to most people, “Revenge of the Nerds” style.
Stupidity rules.
This is not true in other countries poised ready to overtake us, they value their intellegent students as resources. That was once true in this country of enlightenment……..
Rocky, I disagree with your view about other countries valuing their intelligent students as resources. In every country, it’s the movie stars, sports stars and other entertainment folk that are seen as heros and also, are among the richest. Only in America can a “Nerd” become a millionaire/billionaire…which other country has an equivalent of Bill Gates, the founders of Google Sergey Brin and Larry Paige, Steve Jobs, etc? As far as I know, none or a very few at the most. In fact, the intelligent students in all other countries (excepting the EU, I guess) aspire on coming to the USA and staying on here.
The allure of the USA and the necessity of having a good education to survive in their own countries makes the parents in other countries push their kids harder to excel in their studies. The US…not so much…people here are much more relaxed and they let the kids have total control on what they want to do with their lives.
We need the Kratt brothers:
http://www.krattbrothers.com/
To do a series on evolution.
Get ’em in grade school!
H. L. Mencken wrote:
One day it dawned on me that Bryan, after all, was an evangelical Christian only by sort of afterthought — that his career in this world, and the glories thereof, had actually come to an end before he ever began whooping for Genesis. So I came to this conclusion: that what really moved him was a lust for revenge. The men of the cities had destroyed him and made a mock of him; now he would lead the yokels against them.
That’s kind of my take on Dembski too. He thought he was Mr. smartypants until he got out into the real academic world. Then he found out that everybody else was a smartypants too. (That’s my theory anyway.)
I agree with Curtsinger (and, apparently, PZ) about not picking a fight with theists. Why fight a two-front war? Why feed ammo to the radical theocrats who say that science wants to eliminate religion? Contrary to how we might want things to be, our social contract places us at the mercy of the majority in many instances…why piss ’em off if we don’t have to? Educate them (in science, philosophy, and the humanities) and trust the inherent logic of your position to win out in the long run.
Besides which, while science has shown itself to have great objective value, many people find religion to have great subjective value–it helps keep them going, gives them moral certainty, etc. While it isn’t my particular poison, there are many people who find their lives better for it. While I am clearly against people trying to use their religion to force their subjective truth into the objective realm, I have no problem with people who keep it largely to themselves. Some people have liquor, some people have caffeine, some people have Jesus. As long as they don’t blow their Jesus smoke in my face, why should I pick a fight with them?
I am a science teacher working at an international school in a Latin American country. I’ve been working at this school for 5 years.
My school was recently purchased by a conservative corporation that has many other schools in many other countries. We are expected to follow their curriculum. This is my first year teaching their biology curriculum.
It is necessary to teach 10 units during the school year, therefore each unit is allotted about 14 – 16 class periods. We have block scheduling so 1 class = 2 periods. 14 – 16 periods is roughly 3 weeks.
There are some units that MUST be taught, and others that are optional. Evolution is an optional unit, and it is lumped together with ecology.
I just finished with our evolution unit. I am out of time and need to move on unfortunately (I didn’t have time to cover the ecology part of the unit). I wish I could spend at least an entire grading period on evolution. We barely touched the subject.
Because of our location, we have the perfect opportunity to study island biogeography, and I’ve had a “plan” since being here of having students study the natural selection in street dogs (I know that’s a sketchy idea…), but these things can’t happen in only a 3-week (optional) unit.
I agree with Keith that evolution needs to begin early in science education. It shouldn’t be an optional 3-week unit in HS biology.
John, I do absolutely hope you’re correct. While I agree I gave a pessimistic view, the studies I’ve seen put American near the bottom of science and math scores. Instructors I’ve talked with seem to agree with this observation. While we do have the successful Bill Gates types, I believe I read in a past blog thread that even he is supporting Intellegent Design with money, at least for transportation. I found that surprising and dismaying.
My point on Dawkins sometimes pushing too hard was meant in the sense that he can be unnecessarily antagonistic at times, when perhaps a more laidback approach would be more effective (this depends on who he’s arguing with). But I absolutely agree that we need to make the distinction between the hardcore fundamentalists versus the relatively harmless Anglican vicars – after all, we can still be arguing with the latter a century or two from now, but only if the former haven’t destroyed everyone in the meantime.. So, yes, we need to pick our battles and concentrate first on those who would (and do) kill over their beliefs.
As a high school science teacher, I would welcome proactive efforts from university and college science departments. There are a lot of public school biology teachers who probably feel woefully underprepared for debating the validity of evolution, and could use some expert support. Many middle school and high school science teachers get just enough hours in their subjects to learn the basics. I doubt most profs get around to discussing the pedagogy of teaching the differences between scientific theory and faith-based arguments, if they even get around to discussing pedagogy at all.
Another problem is that many teachers, especially new ones, teach from the textbooks, which are generally awful: heavy on glitz and light on content. (Check one out sometime to see what I mean.) Since most high school texts avoid careful exposition of evolution and the origin of life, text-dependent teachers do as well. There are some wonderful science teachers out there who go beyond the texts, but they are in the minority, I’m afraid. The rest would benefit from post-secondary outreach.
No, it is not OK for people to choose to believe in God. By any objective standard, religion is a form of mental illness and those who suffer from it deserve treatment.
This creationism debate is a good place to draw a line in the sand and bring people back to reality. It should be made clear that they cannot have it both ways.
BTW, I got verbally assaulted and physically attacked this year by an angry religous expat parent for bringing up the reasons why creationism (I.D.)is dismissed by scientists. First time that has ever happened…
Charles–No, it’s not OK for you to be a fascist. By any objective standard, people who desire to control the thoughts of people who are doing no harm to others suffer from a mental illness and deserve treatment.
Besides, your statement is patently false. There are many objective standards that could be (and are) used to effectively define mental illness and do not include religious belief. Example: A condition of the brain present only in a minority of the population that negatively impacts a person’s ability to function in society. Such an objective definition would not only exclude religious belief, but would include blatantly evangelical atheism. The medical and (social) scientific community does not recognize religious belief as a mental illness.
Remember, if you condemn everyone who does anything irrational, then chances are you’ll sweep yourself up in the same net. Ever talked to yourself out loud? Ever done anything self-harmful (binge drinking, caffeine addiction, tattoo, etc.)? Ever taken a chance because you’re on a lucky streak? All could be considered irrational, but a vast majority of people do at least one of these things at some point and time. We are humans, not robots.
Why are people running on about ‘evangelical atheism’? What the ***** ar etehy talking about? When is the last time an atheist rang your doorbell and offered you pamphlets on atheism? It just doesn’t happen. Or rarely, at least.
John Safran
The above is considered to be an attempt at humor, because it never actually happens.
Defending your ground is not the same as evangelizing. Admit it, you have never seen an atheist evangelizing.
I think a good start would be educating our children better.
Education in critical thinking, including basic logic, would help students to understand that ‘argument from consequences’ is logically fallacious. Taking a stance against the truth of evolution because you don’t like the alleged religious and moral consequences jsut doesn’t make any sense, as it has no bearing on hte truth of the proposition.
Also, a large number of people are extremely ignorant about what atheism is and what it means. Education on this topic, perhaps in the format of a comparative religions course, would help to address the problem. Atheists do not kidnap and toast Christian babies, they are not necesarily immoral, they do not worship Satan. Many Christian preachers actively promote FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) about atheism to scare their flock away from leaving. Note here that education is not evangelism.
This notion that we will add fuel to the theocrats fire and ire by being “evangelical” skeptics is a sentiment that slides all too easily from the mouths and keyboards of the “reasonable” defenders of reason.
It comes down to making nice with bullies and liars, coddling the poor deluded religioids because maybe we can cut through the fog of faith if we just bend over backwards. And even if we will not “convert” the biggest mouthpieces for deistic delusions, we are told that a sweeter line may influence some of their approachable minions.
This has amounted politically in the US to such creepy displays as our Congress singing “God Bless America” on the steps of the central building of our sorta secular government, and politicians trying to outdo each other in public displays of piety. The Mohammed cartoon debacle has Jack Straw and others doing contortions that will convince or please no one.
I have a bumper sticker on my car: “No Gods, No Masters”
Atheism is so misconstrued and so rarely public in the US. As the bighaired Bayesian Bouffant said: “Note here that education is not evangelism.”
And if “evangelism” really means, as so many Christian evangelists have told me, “to spread the good news”, then I am an evangelist for skepticism, for reason, for democracy, and, yes, by default, for atheism.
PZ: “I hear all these requests for greater leniency towards religion, and they’re incomprehensible to me: why?”
This is not a request for leniency, but I hope you can understand the point I am trying to make in my attempt to answer your question “why”. A previous thread spoke of the lack of communication between scientists and Christians. A major problem on both sides is that people don?t even attempting to understand how the other side thinks.
Prejudice and stereotypes from both sides certainly don’t help.
Too often I hear Christians say “scientists are just a bunch of godless atheists who are trying to prove God doesn’t exist” and atheists say “Christians are just a bunch of delusional idiots who just accept what they are told about God without questioning or thinking.”
Case in point:
“For most people, it’s a case of casual excess, bad habits, and the easy availability of the empty calories of superstitious nonsense. We need more people advocating healthy intellectual nutrition.”
This is a broad generalization. How do you know Christians spend no time challenging or questioning their faith or intellectually engaging their minds? Even if you didn’t intend to (I realize you said “most” and not “all”), this statement is directed not only at the Christians who truly don’t question their faith, but also at those of us who sincerely do.
I have to agree with Curtsinger when he says “Evangelical atheists make the problem worse,?, especially the supporting statements: “Richard ?nevertheless has stated?that, “The purpose of science is to eliminate God from human consciousness.” Well, yes?naturally I don’t agree that that is the purpose of science, no matter how much I wish it would happen. Science is not about “Truth” with a capital “t” as is so often proclaimed by troubled deists and other philosophical romantics, so therefore it is not about “disproving God” either, although I certainly think that the methodical accounting for phenomena renders supernaturalist claims more and more dubious. Of course such a statement by Lewontin would “provide ammunition for Johnson,” and for people like him and the Discovery Institute. ”
The really important point here is that claiming that science disproves God “provides ammunition” and fuels the fire of Christian Fundamentalists because this is exactly what they think scientists are trying to do with science. As soon as you actually say this, you confirm their fears, and any open-mindedness shuts down completely. Not only that, but you alienate those legitimate scientists who actually are Christians and who actually could make inroads into the Christian community, especially among those who are not on the extremist side of the matter. Essentially, you make my job and my mission to help Christians let down their defenses against science much, much more difficult, if not impossible.
Perhaps I am reading you wrong, but it is easy to interpret your statements against faith made here and on many other threads to mean that you don’t believe Christians ever seriously question their faith or even attempt to reconcile faith and science. As one who has spent several years doing just that, I hope you understand why I take issue with such sentiments.
When I was an undergraduate, my primary challenge with reconciling science and religion dominantly concerned the age of the earth. My undergraduate advisor was agnostic and well aware of my angst at this challenge to my faith. Although he certainly asserted the evidence for an old earth, he never insisted I give up on my young earth beliefs and certainly never stated that my faith was empty and nothing more than a “bad habit” or ?empty calories?. Neither did he bar me from science, and ultimately, he allowed me the freedom to struggle with the issue, question my faith, question science, and finally come to the point where I can sincerely accept (legitimate, non-creationist) science and my faith without compromise in either arena. Your statement above belittles and trivializes my very personal and sincere struggle and the struggle of others like me. If my advisor had made statements like that, my mind would have snapped shut, and I would have completely abandoned science altogether. I’m pretty sure I would still believe in a young earth and that scientists were “out to get God”, too.
I hope you can understand why making such sweeping generalizations and stereotypes about an entire group of people are dangerous. I insist that Christians are a far more diverse group than you give us credit for. I also reassert an earlier claim I made on this forum that you will make far more progress if you reach out to people like me rather than alienate us. I think I could make a difference in this fight, but at this point, I don?t sense you would welcome me.
“Although he certainly asserted the evidence for an old earth, he never insisted I give up on my young earth beliefs and certainly never stated that my faith was empty and nothing more than a “bad habit” or ?empty calories?. Neither did he bar me from science, and ultimately, he allowed me the freedom to struggle with the issue, question my faith, question science, and finally come to the point where I can sincerely accept (legitimate, non-creationist) science and my faith without compromise in either arena.”
On other words, you decided to abandon your prior faith wholesale for what the evidence said on the age of the earth. Your teacher didn’t need to help you draw the obvious conclusions that your opinion on the age of the earth was baldly wrong.
Well, yes, exactly. He didn’t force me to abandon that faith. He encouraged me to look at the evidence. He encouraged me to think. He also didn’t ridicule me or my faith, and had he done that, I would not have examined my faith. I would have rejected his influence wholesale. Ironically, abandoning my faith in a young earth and embracing the evidence for an old earth has only made my faith stronger. Contrary to what creationists might tell you, the Bible doesn’t support a young earth.
It does, however, support the existence of four-legged insects.
Luke 14:26
So sayeth Jesus
Anonymous,
Anyone can pull verses out of the Bible to make them mean what they want them to, especially if they take them out of context without exploring the original language, social, historical, or political environment.
That’s not quite right, Morris and Gish mostly updated the “science” behind George McCready Price’s The New Geology (1923). Heck, William Jennings Bryan borrowed much of his argument during the Scopes Trial from Price’s book. Most creationist arguments are retreads from the 19th and early 20th century, maybe tarted up a bit perhaps, but not much is new or original (much less true or accurate).
Yup, and the evidence is that is just exactly what Matthew did when he jimmed up those alleged “prophesies” in his gospel. The bit about the virgin birth being based on a bad Greek translation is just precious. Since Thomas Paine covered this topic in depth over 200 years ago I won’t bore you with repetition.
Regardless of whether humanity truly evolved from blobs of jelly and monkeys, Creationists cannot prevail in the ongoing debate about our origins. Their position is fatally flawed. You see, the Creationist position fundamentally relies upon the premise that the Judeo-Christian Bible is the Word of God. If its not; if the Bible is just a book, then there is no Creationist position. Recently, a lawyer embarked upon a mission to become the greatest Christian on the planet. In his quest he made a profound discovery. He discovered that the Bible is unequivocally not the Word of God. His argument is compelling. After reading his thesis, I am both shocked and embarrassed that I spent my whole life as a Christian and a Creationist. And while his thesis does not invalidate the so-called theory of Intelligent Design, it absolutely dismantles the theory of Biblical Creationism. You can read his Thesis at http://www.indefenseofgod.com/
I just want to pick up on an analogy of PZ’s choosing, (and it is a good one). If I approach an overweight individual at my work cafeteria and say, “That’s right you fat fuck; shovel another one of those grease fries into the hopper.”, nothing else I say about good diet has any meaning to him. As far as he is concerned we are at war.
A short story… When I was 13 I told a Jesuit that I was an atheist. I chose this individual becuase he was one of the most intelligent open minded people I had met. He ran a counciling center for single moms, and was active in establishing a homeless center in “uptown” Manhattan. I met him on a retreat he sponsored for Catholic high school youth, and I was “coming out of the closet”.
He pat me on the head and replied with a giggle, “That’s normal at your age. You’ll develop your faith as you get older,” he smiled compassionately.
I was dumbfounded… speechless. I was ready for a debate. I spent an entire year, reading the Bible, the Torah, and passages about Buddism. I investigated, studied and questioned.
I realized that as brilliant a man as he was, life without faith was inconceivable. THAT is what we are up against.
Why bother? Why humor the faithful?
Because atheists are not up against the Fundies. We are up against 90% of the country. I am NOT willing to loose another election to the right wing because we have antagonized the average voter to the point where they will not listen to reason, and will not let us help them make this a better place to live. Like the analogy, once you call him FAT, he looks somewhere else for answers.