Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
The US has done wonderfully well in collecting Nobel prizes this year, but there’s no reason to be complacent. There’s a lot of momentum in our science establishment, the result of solid support for many years, but there are troubling signs that the engines of our advance, the young minds of the next generation, aren’t going to be propelling us as well. Take this report by science educators, for instance:
“We are the best in the world at what we do at the top end, and we are mediocre — or worse — at the bottom end,” said Jon Miller, of Michigan State University, who studies the role of science in American society.
You may recall that I reviewed Flock of Dodos last week—it’s good, you should all see it if you can. The movie now has a distributor, so maybe you can. Unfortunately, this isn’t a release for private use yet, so what you need to do is get an institution to fork over $345. Yeah, that’s steep, but it includes public performance rights. Maybe you could convince your local university to get it for a Darwin Day showing…? Recoup the cost by selling tickets?
Via Thoughts in a Haystack, here’s an article on A Smart Battle Against Intelligent Design that almost gets the right answer, but then falls into the real trap, the conventional wisdom. First, here are the parts I think it gets right.
Creationists don’t lie all the time, and sometimes the truth can slip out. For instance, Ken Ham has recently admitted that they engage in fabrication, and have even shown pictures illustrating how good they are at fabricating “biblical truths.”
(Yes, this is an example of quote mining.)
Deja vu, man, deja vu. I remember this magazine cover—I even bought the magazine, not because I was worried about the dog, but because I always read the National Lampoon. This is supposed to be a joke, though.
So now Goosing the Antithesis leads me to the
Answers in Genesis page, and what do I see?
You have got to be kidding me. This is no joke: AiG has a a new campaign going that one-ups NatLamp and suggests that if you don’t buy in to Jesus, you will get shot.
If we evolved from lower life forms, then the Bible isn’t true and we are no more than animals. So why should we listen when it says to be fair, to be kind and to love our fellow human beings? The only thing that matters is pleasing ourselves at the cost of whomever gets in our way.
Creationists are a contemptible bunch, aren’t they? Lies and fear. That’s all they’ve got.
Look, the majority of people on this planet do not believe the Bible is true. Somehow, though, they don’t end up on shooting rampages. Isn’t it obvious Ken Ham and his fellow kooks are freaking wrong? How retarded do you have to be to swallow this nonsense?
So…Intelligent Design creationists have a research program? It’s just super-secret, because those real scientists might criticize it, lower its self-esteem, and make it wither away under our skeptical eye.
I’ve heard the same argument from astrologers, homeopaths, and reflexologists.
Since John Wilkins has already commented on Paul Hanle’s article on the declining competitiveness of Americans in science, I’ll focus my opinion on a narrower point. I think Hanle is precisely correct when he points out that ID and creationism are shackles that handicap science education in our country.
By teaching intelligent design or other variants of creationism in science classes at public schools — or by undercutting the credibility of evolution — we are greatly diminishing our chances for future scientific breakthroughs and technological innovations, and are endangering our health, safety and economic well-being as individuals and as a nation.
Earlier this week, I had a chance to talk with Randy Olson about this business of communication good science to the public. I’ve had some disagreements with his strategies before; I think we resolved them a bit. What I had interpreted as a call to dumb down science to get it to the people is really a request that we develop clear narratives, good stories, and sharp, comprehensible slogans backing evolution and science teaching. I agree completely. We are experts at efficient discourse within the community of science, but when it comes to talking to middle America, we suck. There is a good reason for that — we get all of our training in how to talk to other people who have all of our training, but not in how to educate people who don’t have the same background — but that’s no excuse. It’s something we have to change.
Randy was generous and let me have a copy of his movie, Flock of Dodos, and I finally found time to sit down and watch it this evening. It’s excellent and the overall message was one with which I agree, and I hope more scientists get a chance to see it—it accomplishes its mission of shaking us up and pointing out our flaws, and we need that. However, it doesn’t quite satisfy the criticisms I had in mind before I saw it, and there was something that bugged me throughout.
