Evolution, yet another third rail in American Politics, has been getting a lot of coverage lately in the press. Sadly, its not the coverage I would like to see...like the recent discovery that neanderthals and homosapiens may have intermingled (in the biblical sense). Instead, the media (including me, not that I have elevated myself to the level of "the media") is covering the incredible backlash against evolution by conservative groups. The climate in politics has gotten so bad that republicans are attacking other republicans for even suggesting they believe that evolution may be real and that the bible should not always be taken literally. A prime example that came out this week...the primary races in Alabama. Take a look at this attack ad...
This is of course coming on the heels of several states completely removing evolution or elevating intelligent design to equal status in science text books. It scares me to think that one day in the near future, I could be teaching an intro biology class at a small university and actually have to explain the basic tenants of the theory of evolution. Hopefully this anti-evolution fad is simply that, a fad, and will burn itself out.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well, it IS Alabama after all. While its true that not everyone there is a bible thumping moron, they apparently know their consituancy.
ReplyDeletePersonally I can't stand creationists: they can't seem to grasp that it is possible to be religious and intelligent at the same time.
I tend to hope that not all creationists are completely without reason. Even the director of the NIH believes in some level of intelligent design through Evolution. Unfortunately a lot of people still view religion and science as a black and white issue with new room in the middle for the meeting of the minds.
ReplyDeleteIt's one thing to have strong beliefs, and another to not listen to reason. I hope most people can accomplish both - it's too bad politics have become so extreme.
ReplyDeleteTo me the only thing more surreal than the creationists themselves is the media and the intellectual class's obsession with the creationists. Why all the coverage? In a free society people believe (and should be allowed to believe) all sorts of wacky things. Take, for instance, rent control:
ReplyDeleteFor decades economists from the best universities in the world have documented how rent control actually leads to increased homelessness, shortages of affordable quality housing, building abandonment, urban decay, increased crime, and increased suburban sprawl. From Washington, D.C., to New York City, from Egypt to Australia--empirical studies in countless countries on various continents have found that government attempts to regulate, control, or "manage" rent prices have devastating economic consequences for urban areas. From what I can tell, the economics of rent control is just as settled as the science of evolution. Some localities that experiment with rent control and see the consequences first hand have, in the last decade, returned to market sanity (e.g. Massachusetts - which abolished rent control state wide in the early 2000's), but for the most part the rent-control zealots absolutely refuse to acknowledge that science and empirical reality are stacked against them. Some of the rent-control zealots go so far as to attack the science of economics as such--claiming that the models and studies created by economists are always invalid because human economic behavior allegedly cannot be studied or analyzed or predicted.
Why does the media obsess over the irrationality of the evolution-deniers - but give the price-control zealots a free pass? Why are we sooo worried about these rural Christian fundamentalists - who might, oh golly, force high school biology teachers in Kansas to give a 5 minute blurb about how "evolution is just a theory and some people don't believe it" at some point during the week in late October of sophomore year when they cover Darwin's theory? What does it say about the relative power of the rural Christian fundamentalists - versus the power of the educated urban elites who impose (and benefit from) rent regulation? Why the attempt to marginalize the one irrational, anti-science group but not the other? I believe the media obsession with Christian fundamentalists is quite revealing; it reveals who has power and who does not; it reveals the usefulness of constructing a dangerous "other"; it reveals whose narratives get distributed and repeated (infinitely repeated, it seems) and whose narratives do not; it perhaps continues the ancient myth of the "rural savage" - the fear that urban populations have always had of rural populations. It also, most importantly, reveals the power of science in our society - that the most dangerous label you can attempt to afix to some group or movement is that said group or movement is "anti-science."
Well I can't say that I am an expert in rent control, in fact I know little about it, other than to say that my current apartment has some level of rent control associated with it. Given that, I don't want to really discuss the merits of rent control as I just don't know enough about it to not look like an idiot in discussing it.
ReplyDeleteThose disclaimers said, I do not think its fair to compare advocacy for rent control and disbelief in evolution as they really aren't similar. First off, rent control in the US is a relatively new concept and we have only really studied its impact for a few decades (versus evolution where scientists have been collecting data for logarythmically more time). Second, rent control is fundamentally a method of social engineering and not a scientific principle. While I would agree that hypotheses surrounding social engineering can be tested, it is not the same as identifying laws of nature, and, in the end, if the social engineering doesn't work out as predicted, it can often be reversed, as was the case in Mass.
As to why the media obsesses more over evolution than rent control...well my best guess is that its just better TV. I bet if you dragged some of the advocates for rent control onto a news program and asked them why we should have it, they would give a lengthy answer discussing the benefits of diversity in the urban setting, having people who work in the community also live there, etc. etc, and in the end, the real decision is whether the benefits of this social engineering project out weight the costs (lowering of housing quality, lack of free market competition, etc. etc.). Sort of a yawn fest unless you are specifically interested in urban development or live in a city where this discussion is occurring. On the other hand, evolution is not really a cost-benefit analysis. The discussion isn't whether evolution benefits or doesn't benefit us, it is whether it occurs at all and what the ad linked above did was to imply that conceding that evolution may be true means that you have no faith, or that you can't believe in a Christian God. To me that is a completely different level of discussion, though, maybe pro-rent controllers do condemn their opponents to hell and I just haven't been witness to it.
In any case, for all issues, you are going to find people that are adamant in their beliefs, no matter the amount of evidence to the contrary. I think evolution gets more air time because its something most everyone can be invested in...whether the take it as a personal assault on their faith or worry that their kids might not be getting the best education.
In your last paragraph you state: “In any case, for all issues, you are going to find people that are adamant in their beliefs, no matter the amount of evidence to the contrary.” Absolutely—and I was trying to make that point, though I don’t think I stated it that succinctly. If we assume, then, for most any issue you’re going to find a number of people who adamantly hold irrational beliefs regarding that issue – why, then, the relentless focus on the anti-evolutionists? Why not focus on the people who irrationally believe in rent control or minimum wage or other forms of government price controls—which economists long ago proved to be economically hazardous?
ReplyDeleteIf person A and person B are both engaging in bad behavior – maybe not the exact same behavior, but similarly bad behavior – and you repeatedly harp on person A’s behavior while saying nothing about person B’s behavior (or constantly making excuses for person B’s behavior), then I think we can draw at least two conclusions. (1) The problem isn’t really A’s behavior. (2) You’re trying to accomplish something by focusing on A’s bad behavior.
To be honest, I just don’t find your explanations for why the chattering class (reporters, journalists, writers, academics, publishers, movie-makers, screenwriters, etc.) devotes so much time and energy to obsessing over, caricaturing, harassing, and laughing at rural Christian fundamentalists to be that persuasive. I think there’s much more going on than meets the eye.
The amount of energy they spend focusing on the anti-evolutionists is, in my mind, grossly disproportionate to the potential threat posed by the anti-evolutionists. The anti-evolutionists make tangible gains only in a few areas of the country. There’s no actual threat to the quality of education overall – for example, private religious schools and religious universities have long out-performed public schools, esp. if you look only at K-12 education. Public schools in highly conservative places like Utah tend to perform far, far better than more secular inner-city public schools. There’s just zero evidence to think that religious fundamentalists pose any threat to the quality of education. In fact, I could see in your original posting you were struggling to come up with some justification for acting like this is a big threat – and the best you could come up with is that you might someday be teaching freshman biology at some university and some of the students may not be familiar with Darwin’s theory of evolution. (Is that the end of the world I hear coming?)
What’s actually a problem for professors teaching freshmen is the number of public high schoolers who graduate barely able to read or write or do math. If you’re worried about the quality of education or the future of science, those should be the main concerns – not the tiny pockets of rural fundamentalists trying to get biology teachers in Utah to spend 5 minutes on the last Friday in October highlighting that there are “opposing views” on Darwin’s theory of evolution. That’s just not a big deal. What is a big deal is: Why is the chattering class trying to make such a big deal out of the anti-evolutionists?
But deniers of evolution are not a handful of people..they are over a quarter of the US population, and what you argue are a few small advances I'd call major steps backwards from the days of the Scopes trial. I'm in no way suggesting that not teaching evolution in schools will lead to the end of the world but it is worrisome because it reflects an inability for American to move forward when faced with mounting scientific evidence. It also makes me nervous that the same groups trying to debunk evolution in Texas are the ones that petitioned for the removal of Thomas Jefferson's role in the founding of our nation from history books. Now, I will concede that there are larger issues with our education system as a whole but that is well beyond the scope of the original post, which was to point out that a conversative politician was mocking the intellect and faith of a fellow party member for his belief that evolution may occur. If you are looking for a blog that gives equal attention to all issues where there are examples of scientific evidence being overlooked for deep seeded beliefs, well you might have to look elsewhere. I'm an neither compassionate enough or capable of reviewing and writing about everything under that umbrella. I do however find the topic of evolution interesting and wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't turn up now and then on this site, but I digress.
ReplyDeleteWhy does evolution get so much attention over other topics by the "chattering class"? well since you didn't like my last reason, I'll give another one. Maybe the reason it is in the news is that every couple months different judges, state legislatures, school boards and public officials make large policy changes affecting the teaching of evolution. Throw on top of that the history and controversy surrounding the topic, and you get great news bites. I'm not defending how often the press covers the topic, but can understand why the interest. In contrast, how often do states or cities significantly alter their rent control policies? does it happen often? if so, then maybe the press should get involved more, but if not, are we to expect the "chattering class" to write a story about nothing changing?
All that said, this is the first time I have heard the term "chattering class" and I have to say, I don't care for it. I generally hate the "news" these days and try to find primary sources of information where possible, but, I find clumping all forms of media into a single group to be, at best, an over simplification. Several of the major news outlets have gone beyond spinning to be outright propaganda, but there are still others that are more fair in their reporting.
"But deniers of evolution are not a handful of people..they are over a quarter of the US population." I agree that's a troubling statistic. And somewhere near 95 percent of the population believes that minimum wage legislation benefits the poor - which, in my mind, is way scarier. Especially since the actual, quantifiable damage wrought by the price controls is literally millions of times greater than whatever harm is allegedly done by the anti-evolutionists. ;)
ReplyDeleteOh, and I wasn't complaining about your blog not giving equal attention to all issues. I was more wondering why the chattering class in general emphasizes this one issue so much - and so ardently peddles this narrative of the mean scary po-dunk anti-evolutionists takin' over. I mean, I'm guessing you normally don't hunt down political ads from the GOP primary for the Alabama governor's race, right? The chattering class has brought it to your attention. There is a specific narrative here that you've heard many times before and that you are merely reproducing. The name of the YouTube video, "Alabama Political Ad Mocks Evolution," indicates that this is already a common narrative, a well-established storyline. I can't count how many AP, Reuters, and other wire stories I've seen in the last decade that bring to national attention some completely remote and unimportant school board or county supervisor election due to this alleged issue. Obviously your blog will not cover the full range of issues surrounding anti-science movements, but I was more wondering aloud about why this storyline about the anti-evolutions gets so much airtime in our society.