What's the best strategy for defending evolution?

There's recently been a minor controversy in the blogosphere regarding the best way to defend evolution and increase its acceptance among the American public. It starts with a remarkable exchange between Michael Ruse and Daniel Dennett, in which they discuss, among other things, the damage that vocal atheists such as Dennett and Richard Dawkins have done for the cause of evolution. A good quote: The claim is that by lambasting all of religion rather than just anti-evolutionism, as Dawkins, Dennett, and many here at EvC forum do, evolution defenders simply strengthen the false belief that evolution=atheism, thus making their message thoroughly unpalatable to people of faith, including pretty much all creationists.Two evolution defenders within the blogosphere, PZ Myers and Jason Rosenhouse, disagree. Jason writes: And PZ Myers agrees: But another pro-evolution blogger and writer, Chris Mooney, disagrees with the pro-atheist strategy, saying that people base their opinions on far more than just a dispassionate view of the evidence. He says: My question to you guys is, of course, what do you think? When people defend evolution by vociferously attacking christianity or religion, do they hurt rather than help the promotion of good science education?For additional context, see what PZ Myers and Chris Mooney have already written last month on the topic.This message has been edited by Aximili23, 02-25-2006 12:53 PM

I'm not sure that this is relevant. Atheist evolution defenders usually do attack the position, and yes in many cases religious ideas. But what I'm asking is whether or not these attacks on religious ideas, and particularly the idea of theism, is damaging to the cause of science education and acceptance. No serious evolutionist is saying that evolution=atheism, this is an argument you usually hear from creationists. But this argument is perceived when famous evolution defenders such as Dawkins are also vocal atheists. It strengthens the impression that evolution is a necessarily atheistic belief, rather than a well-supported scientific theory.In a way, my question can be rephrased as, should people like Dawkins censor themselves, or their atheistic arguments, so that evolution can be more widely accepted by the public? People can criticize religious belief simply in the context of the broader culture wars. Some people perceive religion, or particularly fundamentalism, as an imposition of morals by one group on another, and on this basis alone I think it's perfectly appropriate to criticize certain religious views. With evolution as one of the many issues within the greater culture wars, and with atheists and church-state-separationists usually on the same side as evolutionists, the association between evolutionism and atheism can be created. Do you agree with this or not?

So you don't think that attacking religion is damaging to the popularization of evolution?

I'm glad you do. In my opening post I linked to something written by PZ Myers, one of the most famous science bloggers in the blogosphere. He argues that while yes, science is by definition neutral with respect to theism, the kind of critical thinking fostered by science is antithetical to religion:

quote:

---

I really think we (not me, of course, but the general "we" of all of us ladies and gentlemen fighting creationism) go too far in trying to present science as compatible and even friendly to religion. It's not. The whole philosophy of critical thinking and demanding reproducible evidence arms its proponents with a wicked sharp knife that is all too easily applied to religious beliefs, which rely entirely on credulity. While individuals may be happy to sheathe that knife during the church service, filling the pews with ranks of critical individuals while preaching absurdities is a risky business. Why do you think I can't go to church? It's because I'm sitting there with a demanding and hair-trigger critical faculty, thinking "baloney!" at almost every platitude from the preacher, struggling against the urge to stand up and shout "Show me the evidence!" at the pulpit. Even if I keep that urge in control, it's not a comfortable time. The religious know that a well-educated populace with a good background in science would mean church attendance would fade away, especially for the more stridently evangelical/fundamentalist (AKA "insane") sects.

---

(Take the time to click the link and read the whole post, I think it's quite good).My point in mentioning this is that it may not be too inaccurate to create a link between science and atheism. Atheism and agnosticism are after all highly overrepresented among scientists, as compared to the rest of the population (I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that upward of 60% of scientists are atheists).Myers would likely argue (I think he has) that by portraying evolution as religion friendly, the core principles of critical thinking and following the evidence are diluted, or even betrayed.

Teaching people to think rationally and critically sounds very idealistic, but in the short term I don't think it's a viable strategy. Creationism is an emotional, faith-based belief that by definition rejects logic and evidence. Presenting solid arguments and data isn't that effective; people are rarely going to listen. How many times has evolution been clearly explained to creationists in this very forum, only to have them obstinately cling to lies and fallacies? And these are creationists who have taken the time to actually visit an online forum. Most others will just hear this sort of thing from the news, or their churches. In the loud and fast-paced world of mass media, there's very little time and patience for a proper education of a complex science.So unfortunately, yes I do think that the battle is in part of tricking people of faith into accepting evolution. I suspect that the recent Evolution Sunday event as led by the clergy has probably been far more persuasive to the general public than lengthy journal articles and speeches by scientists. (Never mind that it's the latter that contains more solid facts and logic). Intelligent design, for all of its vacuousness, has been such a strong rallying point for the religious right precisely because it's such an ingenious marketing strategy, with fancy terms like "irreducible complexity" and a "Teach the controversy" slogan. I think that scientists also need to adopt similar (although more honest) PR tactics if they want to get their message across. There should be a stronger appeal to emotion, and an emphasis on short simple messages that can spread easily (the FSM being perhaps an excellent example, if it weren't antagonistic to religion).The bottom line is, people ARE superstitious; polls have repeatedly shown that more than half of Americans believe in some form of creationism, and they have for decades. So if scientists want to get people to accept evolution, then they absolutely DO have to present it in a light that is acceptable to a superstitious mode of thought. Hopefully in the long run, through a solid and well-founded elementary and high school public education, Americans can be taught to think rationally and have a greater trust and appreciation for science. But in the short term, scientists will need to resort to trickier tactics.

Yes, there's no doubt that there's a theism/atheism debate that goes right alongside of the evolution/creation debate (as well as the pro-choice/life debate, stem cell research debate, and many other issues of the culture wars). Christians do object to evolution on religious grounds, and these objections are shot down when subjected to critical analysis and evidence. But consider what happens when a religious, uninformed person (nearly everyone in the US) witnesses such a debate. Perhaps I'm just extremely cynical, but I don't think he's going to carefully consider the arguments and then think "Oh, those are excellent arguments against my religious beliefs; I'll have to convert to a different faith." No, he'll instinctively think "That scientist guy is attacking religion and implying that there's no God; he therefore can't possibly be right".Sometimes the quality of the argumentation doesn't matter, or isn't enough. The debate has to be framed in a way that makes evolution acceptable on a more instictive, emotional level.

I was going to object to this by pointing out that creationists are caught lying all the time, and they're still going strong. And then I read the rest of your post: With this, I totally agree.

Then perhaps you agree that, strategically speaking, atheists should censor themselves, or at least their atheist views? Or that theistic evolutionists should be put in the forefront of the debate?

Yes, I agree that evolutionists should never resort to lying. But I'm a little conflicted here; I sort of agree with Dawkins and Myers that scientific thinking would tend to weaken religious faith. But I also think that this opinion should be downplayed by evolutionists engaging in debate. Which, as robinrohan had amusingly pointed out, is not quite the same as lying, but is sort of deceitful nonetheless.Anyway, to get some insight on what other possible strategies might be adopted to defend evolution, check out this article by Chris Mooney.

Accepting evolution on its own, as if it were some sort of abstract belief, doesn't sound very important. But in a wider context, the evolution issue is central to how science is perceived in America. A recent TIME article discussed how the US is losing its lead in science and technology, in part because of a dumbing down of science education and a declining interest in science among the youth. When there's this failure to properly educate kids about science, you create a generation that isn't up to developing the technologies needed to keep industry and the economy afloat. Furthermore, you create a culture that distrusts scientists and their findings, which can be disastrous when it comes to policy making. Today, we already see a large proportion of the public that distrusts stem cell research, and a government and industry that ignore the findings of climate scientists with respect to global warming. And when people don't trust science, it doesn't get funded, which only makes things worse.And an understanding of evolution specifically, and not just science in general, is necessary in certain fields, especially biomedicine:

quote:

---

One answer is that if human pathogens are being intelligently designed in response to the evolutionary pressures brought about by prolonged exposure to antibiotics, changes will be required in the current NIH strategies used to combat infectious diseases. Dr. Zerhouni has a difficult job spanning the political and scientific worlds, but it is crucial that great US scientific institutions like the NIH are unequivocal in their defense of science, especially over an issue that is as fundamental to biomedicine as Darwinism. This is a very important matter because the failure of the leadership to robustly support science will eventually be damaging for the whole scientific enterprise in the US.

---

http://www.cell.com/content/article/fulltext?uid=PIIS0092...
(emphasis added by me)So I think it's important that scientists develop more effective strategies for making evolution more widely accepted by the public, and especially the youth. It's not just an abstract battle about personal belief.

No, it would also mean that biomedical research would grind to a halt. Opportunities to improve health and save lives would be lost. Not to mention the catastrophic effect on industry and the environment if that kind of scientific ignorance were so widespread.