Startling Moniker attended an Institute for Creation Research lecture — I have never been surprised at one of these sorts of things. It’s always one foolish lie after another to an audience predisposed to swallow whatever crap is served up. Everyone should go to a creationist presentation (they’re everywhere, trust me) just to see what kind of inanity we’re struggling with.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
So, PZ, you say these loony talks are everywhere. Why don’t we have un-loony talks everywhere? Cafe Scientifique was OK as far as it went. And Science Saturday was a good idea. But such occasions as relate to evolution seem few and far between. The loonies are everywhere. Why aren’t we in more places? Do we just not get invited? Do we not have good powerpoints? Do we not have the activation energy? Do we not have a “we”? The NCSE has speakers available, and I’m sure they can make good presentations. But we can’t be having them come to Minnesota all the time. Is the MCSE doing anything to get a stable of speakers and make their availability known? And available to whom? Schools? Libraries? Even religious organizations? What’s going to counter the loonies at the retail level? Entertaining and informative as you are, not everyone is a Pharyguloid.
The creationists are essentially selling their wares and propaganda while attemting to make the world safer for folks like themselves. Perhaps it is difficult for some scientists to motivate themselves to peddle reason because scientists just generally are not peddlers.-?-
And you don’t think framing has anything to do with the reasons people buy into this bullshit? You think just presenting the real facts will change their minds? It may for a few, but the majority will just tighten their blinders.
The real crux of the framing issue, and I’m not sure it’s been touched on in the articles I’ve read, is that in communication we must touch the HEARTS and the MINDS of the people we’re communicating to in order to make a difference. We have to TELL STORIES as well as PRESENT DATA. We have to make the issues PERSONAL as well as UNIVERSAL.
If we fail to do this, we will never be able to communicate to the majority of people in the pews (or in the couches watching TV).
I say “we” although I am not a scientist. I am just a lowly writer. So what the heck do I know?
It may be true that these presentations are everywhere, but I doubt they’re bringing a lot of new people to the creationist table. If what I saw was any indication, it was just people who were ALREADY very much into home-schooling, fundamentalist religion, and probably members of this particular congregation. If I didn’t read Pharyngula regularly, I wouldn’t have even known about it, as there was no press– just the church sign mention of an “ICR” presentation. I doubt those letters meant much to anyone who doesn’t already pay attention to this stuff in some capacity.
We had a talk by a Creationist at our school which took place in front of a large segment of our physics and biology departments. It was given by a Christian Union member who was still a student. The presentation had obviously been put together by a number of students getting together and going over literature online to pull together everything they could.
There was a horrific mix of Young Earth excuses from cretins like Ham, Hovind and Baugh. There were IDiotic statements from Dembski and Behe. There were insane quote mines put alongside bible quotes.
And there were hecklers. It was amazing. Over here in Britain the creationist movement isn’t often visible, but a lot of us keep track of things over there in the states, and so know all the usual arguments and the standard rebuttals. Seeing as every single one of his point was a direct regurgitation from an internet source, every single one of them was dealt with often as soon as they appeared on the projector.
He often was unable to finish presenting a point before someone explained why it was flatly false. He was torn so many new ones that he eventually started skipping slides he knew were only going to earn him insults. He was that embarrassed that I felt sorry for the guy.
At the end a couple of postgrads from our biology department invited him to their lab where they are working on a project to more accurately date LUCA. One student handed him a full printout of the Dover decision. A girl from my class (first year physics at the time) pulled out a flip pad covered in notes she had taken and started grilling him. I had a nice word or two about abiogenesis. It was quite good fun, and very reassuring to see a lecture theatre that was full over capacity to destroy such views so completely and utterly.
Why don’t we have unloony talks everywhere?
1. We don’t get invited.
2. We don’t have an entrenched sociocultural organization that promotes unlooniness.
3. We don’t push our ideas on people.
If you’re concerned about this, talk to your church leaders and tell them to invite a scientist to come talk. I often express my disgust with moderate Christians, and there’s one reason why: when the loons drag in some knuckledragger from the ICR at their church or one of the neighboring churches in town, they do nothing. Consider yourself obligated right now if you are a practicing Christian — it is your job, not mine, to rehabilitate the reputation of your faith.
Scientists do have institutions, like museums and universities, but they aren’t proselytizing. I think we need to change that.
Hey, writerdd, have you been sneaking into my computer? That’s a major theme of the book I’m working on, the stories we scientists have that are far more satisfying than those of the religious. And yes, if that’s what framing is about, I think it is an excellent idea, and I agree with it. Unfortunately, all we’ve heard from the proponents of framing is nebulous criticisms, with no constructive suggestions at all.
I have been considering writing a letter to the church I visited last night to ask if they’d like me to provide some “balancing” information, or to have an atheist as a guest speaker. It would probably be a waste of a stamp, though– and while I don’t doubt that I could present some interesting info, I’m hardly qualified.
I love the way these people, who insist both that the Bible is inerrant and that the evidence supports the Bible, feel able to spout baseless speculation (and comically stupid speculation) like the vegetarian dinosaur idea as fact. You’d also think the Bible might mention the enormous roast dinosaur banquet at some point.
The problem has been, as I see it, that the people who promote evolution are in situations where they’re asked to “respect the beliefs of others”. Those who promote religion unabashedly proclaim that the beliefs of others are not only wrong but evil as well. So why are the rational fair game and the religious protected by “political correctness”?
Bingo! That’s exactly what the Evil Fundamentalsit Atheist Conspiracy keeps trying to point out, only to be roundly abused by the quislings for its pains.
PZ wrote:
“Unfortunately, all we’ve heard from the proponents of framing is nebulous criticisms, with no constructive suggestions at all.”
Come on. Those of us who are active scientists have pointed out that we use framing all the time, even when writing for our peers. The best example of framing is the Specific Aims page on a grant application. If that isn’t done with framing in mind, even a scientist will lose interest 95% of the time.
Framing is essential when one’s goal is persuasion, and it doesn’t necessarily entail dumbing anything down.
PZ Said:
Hey, writerdd, have you been sneaking into my computer? That’s a major theme of the book I’m working on, the stories we scientists have that are far more satisfying than those of the religious. And yes, if that’s what framing is about, I think it is an excellent idea, and I agree with it. Unfortunately, all we’ve heard from the proponents of framing is nebulous criticisms, with no constructive suggestions at all.
Nope. But I have been wondering if you were working on a book! I think (and I’m nobody important, oh well!) that what I stated above is precisely what framing is about.
I think criticism is an OK place to start a discussion, and obviously if that’s the goal, it has been successful based on the number of blog posts on this subject over the last week or so. But you’re right, we need a lot of contructive suggestions illustrating the best ways to communicate science to the general public. I (obviously, I hope) agree that the stories scientists and other unbelievers have to tell are a lot more satisfying than the stories of religion. Unfortunately, we haven’t done a very good job of telling our stories, on the one hand, and on the other, we are not often given a platform or opportunity to tell those stories to large audiences of non-geeks. Partly the fault of the media, partly the fault of the storytellers? I’m not really sure.
At the very least, as much as Dawkins and Harris (and you) get harassed for being rude, you’ve done a great job about bringing these issues to the fore and making a way for many more people to be able to get their work and ideas into the public arena.
Speaking of getting to talk at churches, have you read “I Sold My Soul on eBay” by Hemant Mehta (aka the friendly atheist)? He talks about that issue exactly, and even was invited to speak at one of the churches he visited in his book. It’s a fast and easy read, and worthwhile for anyone who thinks about these subjects.
So if scientists use framing all the time, why are we being told we need to use frames?
In our modern Transparent society, you cannot expect your most ardent fans to wait patiently for the official publication of your book …
Vidkun Quisling was an openly fascist Norwegian politician who proudly and openly aided the Third Reich’s invasion and control of Norway. Atheists who disagree with the brash and direct approach of PZ or Dawkins are not known to support anything comparable to fascists (much less openly and deliberately). The present disagreement is about priorities and tactics. The call to pipe down about atheism certainly reflects different priorities, and it may be bad strategy for promoting science (as well as for promoting better treatment of atheists), but it is in no way equivalent to the open orchestrated collaboration with fascists that the Nasjonal Samling party engaged in. ‘Quisling’ is a much stupider historical analogy than ‘Chamberlain’ was.
Having pedaled at one time this same “Shake-and-Bake” creationist material over 15 years ago, your experience aligns very closely with what i put many people through in my attempts to demonstrate the “reasonableness” of the Bible and Christian faith. It’s sad to see how this material gets recycled time and time again despite repeated demonstrations of the baselessness of it’s supporting “arguments” (it’s difficult to use sensible words without quotes in referring to such insensible material). The starting point of my de-conversion was realizing that i could ACTUALLY INVESTIGATE and PONDER ON MY OWN the information from reputable and scholarly sources, even if the scientific disciplines involved were a little beyond me at the time (but then how else could i get a handle on them without having someone dictate to me what it all meant?) And, if I may, I would like to apologize to those people out there who patiently put up with hearing this creationist drivel from me.