"You say anti-science, I say pro-god"
by KrauzeYou've all gotten used to "anti-science", the label used by ID critics to describe those who disagree with them? Then get ready for the next label! Here's Mark Drapeau, a neuroscientist and geneticist, telling scientists how to influence the political process:
While I cheer scientists like Dawkins and Gould for "popularizing" science and won't critique them directly, the reality is that only a small, unique subset of people read those books. … We cannot worry about the extremes - very pro-science and very anti-science or pro-god - but rather about the "soft middle" - people who might believe more in science if they heard more about it from convincing, interesting, and even entertaining sources.
June 26th, 2006 at 12:25 pm
Very amusing - but this seems like another example of the sort of attitude that goes into the Wedge document: religion feeling threatened by "methodological naturalism" and responding by trying to change science so that it accomodates very non-natural phenomena. I'd call that anti-science for pro-God reasons.
Comment by Daniel — June 26, 2006 @ 12:25 pm
June 26th, 2006 at 2:15 pm
I just love a priori determinations of just what it is that "science" is able to accomodate.
Comment by Mung — June 26, 2006 @ 2:15 pm
June 26th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
Hi Daniel,
You seem to be missing the point. In my post, I didn't try to "change science so that it accomodates very non-natural phenomena." I just pointed to a scientist and "science defender" who apparently thinks that being "pro-god" is synonymous with being "anti-science". Now, add to this that this is a guy who's teaching scientists how to become political lobbyists, and I foresee some very real-life damage "science defenders" like him can do to the public perception of science.
Comment by Krauze — June 26, 2006 @ 2:28 pm
June 26th, 2006 at 2:52 pm
Mung,
The a priori determination, in this case, is based upon the definition of science: "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena." There's simply no room in there for anything that's non-natural.
Krauze,
Yes, I'm just adding my own take on the anti-science/pro-God topic, with particular reference to my pet peeve, the Wedge. As such, I am simplifying your point a bit, and Mark Drapeau may very well rather tame as far as anti-science goes, but there are many out there who do take a very anti-science stance in reaction to their feeling threatened by science in some way. They may not feel anti-science, but as a biologist, I sure as hell think they're anti-science.
Likewise, I don't feel particularly anti-God, but they might think I am.
Comment by Daniel — June 26, 2006 @ 2:52 pm
June 26th, 2006 at 4:12 pm
Hi Daniel,
We can ignore your personal "pet peeve", as not only do I not support the Wedge, I have no interest in messing with public education either. All that's relevant to my post is this:
"Likewise, I don't feel particularly anti-God, but they might think I am."
Yes, there might be some people having this misconception. Now, imagine some scientists that have been listening to Drapeau, who grab the political microphone and start attacking believers of God in the name of science. Don't you think this'll do much more to entrench the misconception you're complaining about, than anything Gish or Johnson could have said?
Comment by Krauze — June 26, 2006 @ 4:12 pm
June 26th, 2006 at 5:23 pm
Good point, that probably does exacerbate the situation. Invariably, in any argument so heated, both sides have to watch what they say to avoid enflaming the debate and to bring resolution closer. It's a shame, and I guess there's no way around it other than each of us doing our part to maintain civility and decorum.
For my part, I gotta say thank you for the very interesting discussions, and the forethought that you put into your posts, etc.
Comment by Daniel — June 26, 2006 @ 5:23 pm
June 27th, 2006 at 3:16 am
Hi Daniel,
"It's a shame, and I guess there's no way around it other than each of us doing our part to maintain civility and decorum."
What? Are you telling me that the scientific community, which has shown itself to be so capable of signing declarations and issuing decrees when it comes to intelligent design, has no way of fighting politicized scientists who use science to argue for atheism, other than to say polite things to each other?
Comment by Krauze — June 27, 2006 @ 3:16 am
June 27th, 2006 at 3:17 am
Oh yeah, I like your posts too, Daniel.
Comment by Krauze — June 27, 2006 @ 3:17 am
June 27th, 2006 at 11:47 am
Actually no, I was saying that in blog forums, on topics as highly charged as the Evolution-ID debate, tempers flare and harsh attacks occur far too frequently - that's all. Sadly, I've been a party to that on a handful of occaisions, largely due to frustrations in talking to the more dogmatic IDers out there.
With regards to those who would conflate science with atheism, well, I don't usually get into discussions on such topics, so maybe I miss part of that point. Certainly though I have my differences with a few "evolutionists," most recently with some Ivory-billed Woodpecker skeptics over at tomnelson-dot-blogspot-dot-com. But I digress…
Comment by Daniel — June 27, 2006 @ 11:47 am
June 27th, 2006 at 12:11 pm
Hi Daniel,
I truly appreciate the way you present yourself, your position, and the way you treat others around here. You've earned my respect. Thus, when you disagree with something I say, I pay attention and ponder your points. It's the small number of people like you and Krauze (and others) that keep me plugged into this debate.
Comment by MikeGene — June 27, 2006 @ 12:11 pm
June 27th, 2006 at 12:19 pm
Likewise, Mike.
Comment by Daniel — June 27, 2006 @ 12:19 pm
June 28th, 2006 at 7:46 am
Hi Daniel,
As Mike say, you've conducted yourself very well, and it's clear to me that you aren't a dime-a-dozen ID critic. However, there is a large number of ID critics selling a message that goes something like this: "Science is threatened by the creationists, who dishonestly try to portray the issue as one between science and God. Scientists need to fight back by signing petitions, writing essays criticizing ID, and in general telling the public what's what."
It is this message that I'm criticizing in my post. Creationists don't need to make up statements to portray science as anti-religious; there are plenty of real-life scientists already shouting this from the roof tops, as currently illustrated by the 600+ comment long discussion over at The Panda's Thumb. And as more and more scientists grab the microphone to 'educate' the public, creationists will get more and more instances to point to.
Comment by Krauze — June 28, 2006 @ 7:46 am
June 29th, 2006 at 10:13 am
Well, I do think there is a threat, but it's not specifically to science itself, it's to science education. I recall that neither you nor Mike are supportive of the "teach the controversy" legislation in many states, but there are a lot of IDers out there who are. And while the Discovery Institute is careful with their support of such legislation because of legal ramifications, it nonetheless implicitly supports such measures, and has a well-funded PR scheme that does seem dishonest a lot of the time, but no research grant funding (which they should have if they were actually interested in science).
And not all IDers are dishonest, either - some are making valid theological and philosophical points (as opposed to scientific points), and still others just don't seem to understand biology all that well (yet think they do). The ID Movement as a whole seems to lump all of these and more into the "Big Tent." As I've said before, I find that frustrating, as someone coming from outside the tent.
Because of the nature of the ID Movement, and the various legislative maneuvers by IDers to move towards "teaching the controversy," I whole-heartedly support such actions by groups like the National Center for Science Education. The next generation's understanding of science, and biology in particular, is at stake - potentially impacting the future of medical and ecological progress and innovation. I'll admit it: as a person involved in science and research, this alarms me, and I just don't see any way that Creationism or ID can benefit science.
Not that I want to malign religion or theology, either. Yes, I'm rather agnostic, and I think there are a lot of absolutely insane evangelicals and fundamentalists out there (that annoys me, a little), but I do not in any way want to intrude upon the rights of people to have alternative philosophies or worldviews.
I think ID comes in two flavors - the disguised Creationist, and the honest philosophical attempt to reconcile certain beliefs with the knowledge acquired by science over the past ~150 years. If the latter "flavor" would be heard more, and in greater control of the ID Movement, I bet you'd find a lot of "pro-science" people calm down quite a bit. Just look at Science and Theology News, or the Templeton Foundation. Those strike me as downright reasonable groups.
As for the PT discussion, yeah, I want no part of that. The Numbers article, and the debate it spurred over the "Kansas Kangaroo Court" is a little over done - I sympathize with both sides, but think that individual scientists should use their own discretion when participating in such situations, not have a broadly-dictated strategy brought about by popular demand.
Comment by Daniel — June 29, 2006 @ 10:13 am
June 29th, 2006 at 2:14 pm
Hi Daniel,
"I recall that neither you nor Mike are supportive of the "teach the controversy" legislation in many states, but there are a lot of IDers out there who are."
Yes, there are lots of people who want to have a say in how their tax dollars are spent, and that causes problems since any decisions made will influence everyone else. But motivation doth not threat make. As a look at the news at NCSE's homepage will show, attempts to influence science education have been pretty consistently smacked down.
Ed Brayton had a post a while ago that I have been unable to find since. It presents an argument that goes something like this: Any piece of legislation messing with science education will be supported by politicians trying to score points with their religious constituents, and they will couch their support in rhetoric about "standing up for Genesis" or "letting God back into school". When the case goes to court, these statements will be used to show that the bill was religiously motivated, as was the case in Dover. The politicians have no actual interest in seeing the bill enforced - "We tried, folks, but the ACLU and those activist judges wouldn't let us. That's why you have to vote for us next year, so we can keep fighting the good cause." - and will therefore have no incentive in making the bill look secular. No matter what new strategy the Discovery Institute comes up with, it'll have to go through the politicians, and they're playing a different game.
Comment by Krauze — June 29, 2006 @ 2:14 pm
June 29th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
That's a good point, and something that slipped my mind. Still, that leaves a public relations war that neither side of the ID/Evo debate wants to sit on the sidelines of. Anti-intellectualism is still rampant (at least in some parts of the US, I don't know about Europe or Australia), and science/science-education are still political footballs, unfortunately.
Comment by Daniel — June 29, 2006 @ 2:47 pm
June 29th, 2006 at 3:45 pm
Hi Daniel,
"The next generation's understanding of science, and biology in particular, is at stake - potentially impacting the future of medical and ecological progress and innovation."
But we aren't talking about scientists explaining their research to the public, but about scientists using the authority of their profession to weigh in on scientific subjects beyond their profession, or on non-scientific issues of public policy or religion. I enjoyed Sean Carroll's Endless Forms Most Beautiful because he's writing about his area of expertise, namely evo-devo. Contrast this with Dawkins using his title of "Professor of the Public Understanding of Science" to tell his readers that a religious upbringing is a form of child abuse, or that religion is the cause of every evil in the world. In fact, I have it on good authority that NCSE has a policy that evolution-related public statements should be vetted by them first, to avoid embarassing situations like 38 Nobel Laureates contradicting a popular ID critic talking point. But if scientists start using the tools of politics, such as reading manuscripts carefully crafted by lobby groups, the public might start to treat scientists like politicians. And we all know what the general perception of politicians is. In their attempt to defend science, critics might very well end up doing more damage to it than creationists could ever have done.
Comment by Krauze — June 29, 2006 @ 3:45 pm
June 29th, 2006 at 4:18 pm
Yeah, the atheistic agendas of Dawkins, PZ Myers, and the like are a problem - they do overstep their bounds and misrepresent science. A good scientist should know by now that science has no more to say against religion, than for it.
I think I've read you making that point elsewhere, and it's a good one. As much as I might enjoy reading PZ for myself, you could make a very good case that he fans the flames far too often. I'm sure that you're well aware that there are many people out there who just want to tell them (Dawkins, most of all) to just shut up.
But regarding them - if we as "pro-science"-types are to ignore the creationists pushing for "teaching the controversy," why do the IDers get a free pass at getting pissed off at the atheistic ideologues like Dawkins? Aren't both just opposite extremes that have little weight when it comes to more mainstream opinions?
Comment by Daniel — June 29, 2006 @ 4:18 pm
June 29th, 2006 at 6:56 pm
As a related comment, it's people like Joy that get me upset and fan the flames of annoyance amongst "pro-science" people like myself. Oh, I know full well that her claims are baseless and I'd be better off just ignoring her, but comments like these do absolutely nothing for keeping discussions sane, civil, and intelligent (no pun intended):
Sure, they're just fallacious strawmen, but all they serve is to get my adrenaline pumping and encourage me to lay out the anti-religion rhetoric. What does one do when confronted with such people? Ignore them, so they can criticize me and other science-types behind our backs, or address their issues and possibly raise my blood pressure to the point where I let an insult or two slip.
… Sigh… I do hope I've maintained my composure, but respect, honesty and civility are a two-way street. (oh, and thanks for the opportunity to vent! :neutral:)
Comment by Daniel — June 29, 2006 @ 6:56 pm
June 29th, 2006 at 7:07 pm
Comment by Joy — June 29, 2006 @ 7:07 pm
June 30th, 2006 at 12:04 pm
I can only assume that by anti-intellectualism you mean those opposed to using their intellect. Why should anyone accept that your belief in this regard is in any way, shape, or form itself rational and not anti-intellectual?
Comment by Mung — June 30, 2006 @ 12:04 pm
June 30th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
No, I'm specifically referring to this sort of mindless anti-intellectualism, and the broader contempt that some people have, for whatever reason, for higher education.
Comment by Daniel — June 30, 2006 @ 12:12 pm
July 4th, 2006 at 11:39 pm
Daniel, on what possible *rational* grounds do you take exception to "anti-intellectualism" or to "mindlessness" or (for that matter) to "broader contempt … for higher education" or to any of various permutations and combinations?
I should be more clear. You may certainly take personal exception to anything at all as you desire, with or without rational reason. However, it certainly seems as though you consider this "Anti-intellectualism [which] is still rampant (at least in some parts of the US …)" to be a bad thing, as though it (assuming for the nonce that what we're talking about is something more serious than "disagrees with *my* world-view, therefore anti-intellectual") violates some sort of *oughtness.* It certainly seems as though you think (and all but insist) that everyone else who reads this blog should also take exception to this asserted "Anti-intellectualism [which] is still rampant (at least in some parts of the US …)"
Is this the case? Have I understood, at least the general thrust of your concerns?
And if so, on what grounds? Why should I, or anyone else, care one whit about the (at this point, purely hypothetical) *oughtness* or its seeming violation by the "Anti-intellectualism [which] is still rampant (at least in some parts of the US …)?" Is this *oughtness* objective? Is it binding on all persons at all times? And how do you know this? Where does it come from? What is its basis? What is its claim over anyone as an *ought?*
I had thought you were a 'modern evolutionary theorist,' a Defender Of Science And Democracy And All That Is Good And Right And True. It's so disconcerting when you folk start asserting *ought* and castigating those who fail at the asserted ought. What's next? Will you soon refer to someone with "backward" views as a "knuckle-walker," as though one ought not be a "knuckle-walker?"
Comment by Ilion — July 4, 2006 @ 11:39 pm
July 5th, 2006 at 5:57 pm
Why, next thing you know they'll be insisting on *norms.* Gasp!
Comment by Mung — July 5, 2006 @ 5:57 pm