Teaching Evolution to Creationists and Politicians
Jim Babka on Sep 1st 2008
Much has been made, already, both on TV and the Internet, about Sarah Palin’s support for “teaching creationism.” I’ll come back to her in a moment.
I believe Darwinian evolution is the best explanation of humanity’s natural history. I didn’t arrive at that view easily. I was raised to believe in a literal six day creation. But as soon as I investigated a bit, I found out how unlikely and untenable this idea is.
However, I didn’t stop my investigation there. When I realized that six day creation didn’t happen, I began reading up on Intelligent Design. I had high hopes for this viewpoint. Long story short, in the Summer of 2005 (I know, such a long time ago, right?) I figured out that ID was bunk.And I endeavored to begin to understand better how “Darwin’s Machine” worked.
I am not alone. As I’ve written about on this blog, tens of thousands of conservative Christians have made a journey similar to mine during this 21st century. We recognize evolution is NOT a threat to our faith (much as some might wish to make it so).
Fresh from my enlightenment, I outlined some of the things that were influential in that process on my old blog. But I’d like to say something more philosophical here.
Those who understand evolution are frequently not very patient with those who don’t. This is ironic, because evolution is largely about patience.
I hate to break this to everyone, but getting religious folks to understand and appreciate evolution is going to take some time and the transition is going to be gradual. Surprise!
And attacking someone for believing in “creationism” isn’t going to get them to take a look at it — quite the contrary. Telling someone that their religion is a relic and evolution proves it, isn’t a very effective strategy either. How come those who understand and advocate evolution don’t think in incremental terms when it comes to persuasion?
There’s an all-too-human assumption that once I’ve figured it out, everyone should know what I know. That’s completely unreasonable, but I’ve trafficked in marketing of ideas for most of my adult life now, and I’ve seen this same line of thinking repeatedly on a variety of issues. It gets frustrating when you think you’ve explained yourself 10,000 times, and some @&&#%!! comes along and makes the same lame objection demanding you repeat yourself for the 10,001th time.
But a crowd that prides itself on the ability to reason, talking about the gradual transition of old things into new things, has no business shoving evolution down people’s throats. Besides, this approach doesn’t work! Spokesmen of the Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers ilk are Duane Gish’s best friends and top fundraisers. Do the “reasonable” really have an interest in education? …or have they just grown too frustrated — tired of explaining the facts to the @&&#%!!s?
If one wants others to be reasonable, one must explain themselves, reasonably. If one want others to understand a patient process, one must strategically proceed with their persuasion as a patient process.
And for the readers of this blog, if you want an example of patient persuasion, read Jon Rowe. He’s been explaining that America was founded, primarily, by a group he calls theistic rationalists, instead of a majority of orthodox trinitarians — that it was founded with a very heavy dose of enlightenment principles, more so than Biblical principles — for perhaps five years now. He’s constantly forced to repeat himself, acquire additional evidence, and bat down the same silly objections from people who, because they’ve watched a David Barton video or two, think they know history. Jon Rowe is fair, empathetic, patient, and reasonable.
Who is doing this same work on the creation/evolution issue? I’m sure there are some, but they’re not getting much press.
Which brings me to the “threat” (or lack thereof) in Sarah Palin’s views. Here’s another thing that doesn’t make sense to me. Maybe I’m missing something. Why does anyone expect politicians to understand anything other than their career objectives — getting elected?
We expect our politicians to not only have opinions on everything, but also to have correct (by our standard), well thought-out positions on everything of importance (to us). How impossible is this? To begin with, successful politicians are, generally, quite shallow, insecure people. For decades many of them haven’t known what they thought about anything, other than their pursuit of power; they’re so used to figuring out how to please enough other people to get re-elected that they don’t even know themselves. Or, as they put it in the trade, “They believe their own press clippings.”
So what does it matter what Sarah Palin thinks about creationism? Frankly, if she understood evolution and could explain why, I’d be surprised — especially given that she’s a Christian conservative and BOTH POLEMICAL SIDES of the creation/evolution debate have told her Christians must be creationists!
On the other hand, how many secular, liberal Democrats understand that windfall profits taxes are a dumb idea? Conservatives and creationism. Liberals and central planning. Both are articles of faith lacking evidence. Which of the aforementioned political beliefs is more likely to harm more people?
Now, if Mrs. Palin were running for school board I could better understand the concern (though I think government schooling is a terrible idea). But she’s running for Vice President of the United States. It has, quite literally, nothing to do with the office.
And her belief, one way or the other, is no threat to science education:
* Teaching creationism in a public school science classroom has not been legal since 1987.
* Teaching Intelligent Design in a public school classroom has been illegal since 2005.
* No federal candidate is likely to expend ANY energy to change that — including Sarah Palin. It would be too controversial. Every gain would be matched by a loss. That’s bad math for political success. Politicians don’t like risk. And this particular politician now has a chance (unless she morphs into Dan Quayle) to be a front-running candidate for President in 2012 or 2016.
So why is there any concern over her opinions on natural history?
Hardball delenda est.
Filed in The Belfry, The Bench, The Biosphere
This is a bit unfair to Palin as she has explicitly said she doesn’t want creationism as part of the curriculum, just that the classroom should be open to discussing it (see below). Palin aside, you’re right on with the rest.
See here (http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html) where she says:
In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms:
“I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.”
She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state’s required curriculum.
Members of the state school board, which sets minimum requirements, are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature.
“I won’t have religion as a litmus test, or anybody’s personal opinion on evolution or creationism,” Palin said.
The problem, at least for me, is akin to electing someone to run our nation who still thinks the world is flat. To have someone in charge of our nation who doesn’t understand even the broad outlines of fundamental information like that, well, it just doesn’t sit well with me.
I say that as someone who worked for a young earth creationist for five years, and I’d be happy to work for him again — he’s a brilliant guy and a wonderful business person. But he doesn’t decide the science funding for our nation, and the President does.
If you feel that aspect of the Presidency is less important than some other parts and thus Palin being a creationist doesn’t bother you, that’s fine. But for me, it’s one of those fundamental sorts of things that tells me a person either is or is not willing to take the world as it is, and not as they imagine it to be, in an arena that is clearly part of the fact-based universe and not a matter of feeling or opinion.
Jim
I’ve offered that those who hold that Ms Palin wants creation taught in schools are pretty much on a par with those who hold that Mr Obama is a Muslim.
Mr Horwitz correctly notes that Ms Palin doesn’t want to dictate what is taught in schools (localizing the decision) and that debate is good. Do you actually disagree with her actual position?
Steve Horwitz, I agree that we should given Palin the benefit of the doubt as to her current views. But I must insist that she openly supported creationism at least a couple of times. It was only later that she shifted her view to a much more moderate “allow classroom discussion if it comes up” view. Here are the quotes I know of:
Q: The education section of the Republican Party of Alaska’s platform states “We support giving Creation Science equal representation with other theories of the origin of life. If evolution is taught, it should be presented as only a theory.” Do you support this position? Why?
A: I support this plank in the Republican Party’s platform. I believe society can have healthy debates on scientific theories, so equal representation of creation and evolution shouldn’t be an offense.
[24 Aug 2002, http://www.newsminer.com/news/2008/aug/29/palin-issues-national-interest/
“Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.”
[25 Oct 2006, http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html
“I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.”
[26 Oct 2006, http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html
An excellent point, and one that gets too little attention. There is no party of reason, and nor will there be. Politics is about finding what is popular, critical thinking is about finding what is true. For any politician, no matter what their party, the former is everything and the latter is nothing.
As is generally the case in a democracy, the real problem is the voting public. We will only get rational politicians if the electorate demands them.
[...] of the more respectable bloggers falling down, I made the note that those who hold “Ms Palin wants creationism in the schools” are [...]
Minor quibble:
Windfall profits tax - Not central planning unless you think all taxes are central planning.
Bad idea? The chief issue with the tax is that it decreases the incentive to invest since the reward for a successful investment in the future becomes that much less. This dis-incentive, though, is a function of whether the windfall tax is perceived as something that will be enacted whenever prices go up a bit or whether it is a one shot deal enacted at a moment of a dramatic price increase. To the degree it is perceived as a ‘one shot’ the disincentive effect is lowered or non-existant. In that case it becomes closer to a ‘poll tax’ which is actually the most economically efficient of all taxes.
Another argument in its favor is that oil companies enjoy a host of special incentives that ease ‘windfall losses’ at taxpayers expense. A tax that captures revenue as prices go up is just evening out the board.
I do think a windfall profits tax is central planning. After all, someone must decide what constitutes “windfall” or “unfair” profits, and that’s usually the central government. From that point on, we are planning one important aspect of the economy.
Although oil companies do enjoy a host of special incentives, as you say, their profit margins are often quite thin compared to many other types of business. This holds true even in conditions that favor them, and the “windfall” profits being made lately by Exxon are, in percentage terms, not much to brag about at all.
Patience? The science has been settled for over 150 years. There are hundreds if not thousands of strong arguments for evolution, there are 0 for creationism.
Over the years I have been willing to discuss this with seemingly intelligent folk. Eventually the number who argue in bad faith — God says X, therefore no amount of evidence and reasoning is sufficient — drives me away for several years. If people choose to be stupid, so be it. (I’m in the mocking stage of the cycle, give me a few years and I’ll try to be patient again).
I want to agree with you on Palin, the VP and/or President shouldn’t be involved in education or school funding issues, but slowly the Federal government seems to be getting involved in entirely too many local issues.
Jason
1. Well yea someone has to set a tax rate, figure out the rules and apply them and all. That’s not central planning unless you’re going to argue all taxes are central planning. Central planning is what was done in the early 70’s where the gov’t actually dictated the prices that oil from various wells could be sold for (i.e. old wells had to sell their oil at the ‘pre-embargo’ price…as a result no one wanted to invest in maintaining older wells only new ones….therefore the price increase spurred shortages rather than adding additional resources to the mix).
2. I believe Exxon is in at least two different businesses. One is pumping oil and selling it (either oil they own or oil they pump on someone else’s behalf). Another is refining oil into fuel (and to this add the actual retailing of gas at stations). The second is probably a low profit margin business the first probably is not…at least when oil prices spike.
Do I think it’s a great idea? Probably not but in terms of raising taxes I think a lot of other types of tax increases would be worse and the negatives of this type could be exceptionally well constrained.
If the government decides how much profit is “enough” for a corporation, that is central planning. If the government decides that everyone has to pay taxes on some sort of uniform plan, with relatively few exceptions or special rules for particular individuals or classes, then there is relatively little central planning. This is an important distinction, and a windfall profits tax is a lot more like the former. That’s my main concern: One important aspect of fairness is generality.
“* Teaching creationism [ID] in a public school science classroom has not been legal since 1987 [2005].”
I’m sure one of the fine resident legal minds will correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s my lay understanding - confirmed I think by the wiki entry on Aquillard - that this isn’t technically correct (and probably correct in at most a severely limited sense per Kitzmiller, a district court decision).
In any event, any intended suggestion that this is a dead issue is demonstrably wrong. And the concern isn’t that a fed official will militate for teaching creationism/ID but that one might make (as several have made) ignorant statements that encourage attempts to smuggle them into curricula by implying that the decisions stifle legitimate scientific debate.
OTOH, not nearly enough by itself to disqualify the candidate, IMO. Evidence of much more wide ranging ignorance should be required.
- Charles
Mark, First, let me say I agree with your Obama/Muslim analogy — completely.
Second, I don’t disagree with Ms. Palin’s point of view as you present it. Dave2 offers some quotes, and the only one I’m concordance with is the final one he cites.
But as you explain her position, I agree: There is no Constitutional role, per enumerated powers, for the federal government in education. And I think Intelligent Design has challenged real scientists (including some Christians who happen to be professional scientists) to prove them wrong with some cool new discoveries (like the blood clotting cascade). The confrontation with ID has sharpened the rhetorical and popular selling skills of scientists.
When both sides are presented, I think the case is open and shut in favor of the Darwinian view to open-minded parties. I think the persecution of these ideas gives them life. It certainly helps fundraising.
But I come back to the point that government schools absolutely should not exist and that even if you disagree with me that ID has been good for real science, you’re busy arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
While I don’t expect politicians to know everything about stuff I know about, the controversy between creationism vs. evolution for example, I do expect them to provide their opinions based on factual assertions. When a Bobby Jindal implies the ID is a viable alternative theory to evolution and therefore should be taught in LA schools, I’m sorry, but my opinion regarding his character is he has none and I will never consider supporting him, character matters.
To amplify Hebert’s point - I would expect them to understand evolution. If creationism being taught was lobbied for in their jurisdiction, I would expect them to then bone-up on the controversy rather than spending their time figuring out how to frame their speech so they don’t offend creationists.
Jim,
I totally disagree that ID has helped science. Having to debunk the same tired old arguments again and again has wasted many a talented scientists time. What possible good does it do to have a scientist in a courtroom defending how real science is done? It would be much better for them to be doing real science or talking to the public about the cutting edge.
Creationism/ID just rehashes the same old worthless stuff — “well I can’t imagine how it would be possible” and “there are no intermediate forms in the fossil record” and “we haven’t seen evo in action” and “evo is not predictive”…. all false or meaningless.
Do you have any links to back up the assertion that somehow ID provided a benefit for understanding the blood clotting cascade. My limited google searches only turned up that it has been pretty well understood for quite a while. It also turned up the dishonest quack Behe trying to take some credit.
stuartl, Well, I don’t know how people, particularly kids in a class, are going to understand science if scientists don’t step outside the lab once in awhile to describe it. In the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, that clearly happened. And it’s a credit to the scientists.
I’m sorry I don’t have links you requested. I’m working from memory. And I don’t want to spend the time to look them up either. Ed Brayton reads this blog, and much of what I know about the Kitzmiller v. Dover case I learned from him. Maybe he can supply the backup to my memory?
But Behe did make some claims about a process in the blood clotting cascade that was allegedly proof of irreducible complexity. Almost immediately, discoveries started. I think there were about a dozen different scientists who made important, Behe-disproving discoveries shortly after the release of Behe’s book up through the trial. The timing of these discoveries is striking. It’s like the scientists wanted to shut up Behe. And one of the high drama moments in the trial came when Behe was required, under oath, to admit that he wasn’t keeping up with the science in this field.
As far as re-hashing, ID is a different theory than creationism — politically, it’s not; but factually, it is.
stuartl, i think many in the scientific community who can’t see Victory when it’s staring them in the face! ID represents a concession. Guys like Behe offer no dispute to an old Earth, common lines of descent, with modification, and the effect of the environment on mutation and development. They’re down to arguing about whether natural selection can be the sole mechanism to describe this change.
Jim,
My personal position on schooling and government is somewhat similar to yours, except I think there is cause for the state in a technological age to offer support for successful schools. The catch is, I don’t give a hill of beans what the schools teach in particular as long as they teach the students the skill of learning.
If the government tracked development of students learning skills and rewarded (all those different privately run) schools that taught those the best the most … that might be interesting.
The Dover decision only applies to Judge Jones’ circuit. Other circuits can ignore this decision if they see fit. If they do, it could end up at the Supreme Court (as conflicting decisions often do), where it could be heard by justices appointed by a hypothetical President Palin.
That’s why her opinions on natural history matter.
[...] friend Jim Babka has a post at Positive Liberty about Sarah Palin’s views on creationism. I agree with much of what he said in that post, but not [...]
Jason: Then what if windfall taxes were built in as an economic braking system; in other words, what if they were written into law to come into effect only during periods of hyperactive price growth? In this way, they’d be little different than any other aspect of a progressive tax code.
That’s not to say that I favor windfall taxes. A better way to prevent abusive pricing and market manipulation is simply to put all those regulations we once had on this and other industries back in place, force them to reinvest a specific percentage in their infrastructure instead of allowing them to put as much money as they like into investments, exclude companies from using their own 401k plans as collateral in investments or capital on the balance sheet, encourage greater shareholder activism in the hopes that it will bring CEO pat and benefits under control, and cleaning up the tax code so that they can’t hide their profits to avoid paying. The fact that we’d even talk about windfall taxes, about taxing people after they’ve made suspiciously large profits, implies that the system regulatory system is broken (or in need of reconstruction as is the case throughout U.S. industry these days). The solution then, isn’t to try and shave those profits bluntly to increase equality, its to put rules in place that will allow them to reach such profits if they follow the rules, but punish illegal, abusive, or anti-competitive activity.
And for those who poo-poo regulation, remember; industrial regulation is merely enforcing the law in regards to corporations. Every citizen has rights, but with those rights come responsibilities and rules, even for corporate ones.
Uhg, I did a crappy job editing that post. My apologies. More reading, less typing next time.
Julian –
First off, I’ve implemented a live comment preview. I’m not sure it will help with anything but the HTML as it stands, but I’m continuing to research.
In the meantime, your question:
The problem with this idea is that “hyperactive price growth” is not an arbitrary or superfluous event. It’s a signal to the market that more production is needed. These signals don’t happen because of corporate greed. They happen because supply isn’t keeping up with demand (which may have a variety of causes, most of which are innocent, and some of which are not). This signal tells market actors how to behave, and muting it will result in further shortages in the future. Which will result in further “windfall” profits.