carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (01/26/85)
First some good news (for evolutionists): The Louisiana "balanced treatment" law was invalidated a few weeks ago. I heard this on the radio but I have not been able to find any coverage of this in any other media. Now some bad news: The February *Harper's* contains another article attacking evolutionary theory by Tom Bethell. If this sort of thing is finding its way into such publications as *Harper's*, now is not the time for complacency among evolutionary biologists. If you guessed that Bethell is a journalist, not a biologist, you guessed right. The alleged debate between creationists and evolutionists would benefit greatly by the recognition on both sides that this is really a political conflict masquerading as a scientific debate. There *was* a scientific debate between evolution and creation, and it was settled several generations ago. What we have now is something quite different. Nor is it merely a battle between scientific rationality and the dark forces of religious obscurantism. The conflict has political and social roots and will be resolved on the political battlefield--how or when I don't know. These roots are probably very complex, but one factor seems to be a sense of decreased power among a sector of the American population, and a loss of local control to technical bureaucratic institutions. Hence the main thrust of creationist activism: to influence the teaching of science and of "world views" in the public schools which many of their children attend. Such excellent articles as those of Bill Jefferys are valuable in explaining scientific reasoning, but it is a vain hope that social conflicts can be resolved by scientific arguments. Jefferys and Ray Miller can argue themselves blue in the face without reaching a resolution; both sides of the creation/evolution debate are talking past each other because they are not dealing with the real roots of the conflict. To those who wish to explore these matters further, I recommend *The Creation Controversy* by Dorothy Nelkin. Nelkin writes (pp. 166-67): "In order to understand the creationists and the attacks on science education programs, therefore, one must go beyond the pejorative labels of antiscience and irrationality to analyze the social and political tensions that sustain the resistance to science. These tensions are expressed in three themes that pervade many disputes over science and, in particular, the textbooks disputes described in this volume: 1. disillusion with science and technology as threats to traditional values; 2. resentment of the authority represented by scientific expertise as it is reflected in public-school curriculum decisions; 3. defense of the pluralist and egalitarian values that appear threatened by modern science." And on pp. 185 ff.: "The extension of personal beliefs and democratic principles to science suggests a public image of science at odds with the perceptions of scientists themselves. Scientists are amazed at the idea that questions of fairness in the representation of beliefs should determine the substance of scientific education: Can quacks be entitled to equal time?...To scientists, concepts of pluralism, of equity, of "fairness," of wide-open participatory democracy as practiced in a political context are irrelevant to the context of science....Scientists accept theories and teach them, not because they represent "truth," but because they are accepted by the scientific community as useful explanations of reality....In this context, only collegial acceptance can validate one theory and reject another; the views of those outside the community are irrelevant....The extent of creationist influence, the fact that many people are sympathetic toward the creationists' demands of "equal time," raises questions about the public understanding of science.... "...[T]he creation controversy illustrates two common beliefs about science that bear on its acceptance: (1) that science can be defined as a collection of facts, and (2) that it can be evaluated in terms of its influence and implications.... "The persistence of these images of science derives in part from problems in communication. Historically and methodologically, much of science developed in opposition to the dogmatism of religion, and most scientists understand their own work as approximate, conditional, and open to critical scrutiny. This is in striking contrast to the frequent public representation of science as authoritative, exact, and definitive....Perhaps the most difficult concept to convey to those who are not scientists is the delicate balance between certainty and doubt that is so essential to the scientific spirit. Textbooks tend to convey a message of certainty....The recent explosion of popular science magazines and books hardly broadens the image. In the tradition of "news as entertainment," they portray science as a set of dramatic "results," as a source of hopeful promises, or as a cause of dire threat. The structure of science as a social process, less dramatic, is ignored....To those whose personal beliefs are challenged [by science], the social and moral implications that can be drawn from a scientific theory assume far greater importance than any details of scientific verification. Indeed, increased technical information is unlikely to change well-rooted beliefs. Creationists, as we have seen, avoid, debunk, or disregard information that would repudiate their preconceptions, preferring to deny evidence rather than to discard their beliefs. A great deal of social reinforcement helps them maintain their views in the face of repeated frustration, and opposition only strengthens their religious convictions. "Confronted with conflict, scientists tend to forget the differences between the structures, meritocratic processes of science and the pluralistic processes of political disputes...." Go read the book. Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes