How dumb can we get before the bottom falls out?

October 8, 2005

Guest Post by Morbo

I’d like to present another winner in my semi–regular “Dumbest Thing Said About Evolution” contest.

This time New Jersey Rep. Scott Garrett takes the prize. Let’s give him a big hand.

Garrett looked across the border into Pennsylvania, where a school district in Dover is being sued for adding “intelligent design” to its curriculum. He observed what will be a costly, drawn-out lawsuit, a lawsuit that has made the town a laughingstock all over the globe, a lawsuit that has angered teachers and torn the community apart — and Garrett concluded New Jersey should emulate the Dover School Board.

“Evolution is the predominant theory right now,” said Garrett, R-Wantage. “[But] intelligent design is one that is apparently growing in some scientific communities, in academia. … It seems that a school board should at least consider being tolerant and open to discussing both theories.”

Just a few problems here. Number one, intelligent design isn’t growing in any scientific community. It’s doing land-office business in fundamentalist churches, but the guys in the white lab coats who do real science have already laughed it out of the laboratories.

Two, intelligent design isn’t growing in academia, either. In fact, the same six guys keep promoting it over and over and over. And one of them is a lawyer, not a scientist. Another is a mathematician.

Finally, this has nothing to do with tolerance. This is about science education.

Some fundamentalist nutcases advocate “geocentrism,” the idea that the Earth is the center of the universe and does not move. (See here. I don’t think this site is a parody, but these days one can never be sure.) Our refusal to teach kids geocentrism is not because we are intolerant toward the “non-moving Earth” faction. We don’t teach it because it’s utter nonsense with no scientific support.

And sorry, digging up a handful of academics who believe a kooky theory does not give you academic cred. The late psychologist John Mack of Harvard had advanced degrees and was well respected in his field — until he started writing books arguing that space aliens were abducting people. Even people with lots of letters after their names can believe odd things. Science goes with observation, experimentation and a convergence of evidence. When 99.99 percent of all biologists back evolution and can point to mountains of evidence to explain why, it would be silly to pretend like the remainder have an equally valid theory — especially when they have produced no legitimate research.

Garrett had the misfortune to open his mouth at about the same time 200 scientific and religious leaders, including six Nobel laureates, sent a letter to the governors of all 50 states, urging them to insist that their schools teach evolution.

The letter signers pointed out that the United States cannot hope to remain the world leader in science if we continue to give evolution the short-shift in the classroom.

I’ve always found this last argument very compelling. I’ve said in previous posts that biotechnology will dominate the future. Those jobs will not go to ignoramuses who don’t understand the underlying principle of modern biology.

All of this opens up an interesting question: What percentage of the U.S. population can remain oblivious to modern science before we start to feel serious negative effects?

Heaven knows Americans are not the most scientifically literate people on the globe. Right now there are people sitting at home with runny noses who think they got sick because the feng shui in the living room is all wrong.

At what point does this become simply too much of a burden? Can our country always rely on a tiny scientific elite to pull our butts out of the fire? I worry that the pool keeps getting smaller and smaller. The latest Pew Forum results about creationism and evolution are out, and, as usual, they are appalling. Distressingly large numbers of people continue to accept sheer and utter nonsense such as the young Earth and human/dinosaur coexistence.

How long can this go on? How long can so many people remain ignorant before the whole shooting match just collapses? When do we reach the tipping point?

I’d rather not find out, but I have a bad feeling that I will.

Morbo,
I know that you may not be from this backwards planet, but the correct phrase is “short shrift.”

Main Entry: short shrift
Function: noun
1 : barely adequate time for confession before execution
2 a : little or no attention or consideration b : quick work — usually used in the phrase make short shrift of

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary link: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

P.S. – I miss you on Futurama, do you have any offers for another news gig?

  • As I said on my blog:

    There is no direct evidence in favor of ID: proponents simply select some adaptation in a living creature and say, “Can you imagine how that could have evolved from natural selection on random mutations? No? Neither can I. That proves that it couldn’t have. So Something must have designed it! See, Billy? Isn’t science easy?”

  • It is absolutely mind blowing that 42% of
    the American people believe in Biblical
    creationism, according to a recent
    Pew Poll. It seems to suggest that
    nearly half the people are capable
    of believing virtually anything, no matter
    how little evidence there is to support
    the opinion, nor how much there is to
    contradict it.

    Or is it 100% of the people? Are we
    all so irrational as this? Do all of
    have a rigid set of beliefs that we
    adhere to no matter what?

    That said, where do our progressive
    inclinations come from? Are we just
    as capable of being right wingers,
    if we’d come through life on a
    different path?

  • >Morbo,
    >I know that you may not be from this backwards planet, but the correct >phrase is “short shrift.”

    PUNY HUMAN! How dare you correct Morbo? But in this case you are right, so thanks.

    And just in case you’re wondering, kittens STILL give Morbo gas.

    Morbo

  • Oh man Morbo, I can’t believe you dissed feng shui. Your Ki is going to be so wacked out. You’d better face your computer to the East and re-boot.

    Re: tipping points.

    I look forward to an awakening of awareness to rationality and logic as much as “they” crave their rapture. The truth will set us free without leaving cars, trains, boats and planes without their pilots.

    Rapture Crapture. I.D. = Intellectually Deficient

    We need to add that to Culture of Corruption

  • Great conversation yesterday on Talk of the Nation:

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4949445

    October 7, 2005 ยท World-renowned primatologist Frans de Waal talks about his new book Our Inner Ape. From conflict resolution to altruism, violence and sex, how much do humans have in common with our nearest primate relatives?

    Guest:

    Frans de Waal, biologist, ethnologist; author, Our Inner Ape; director, Living Links Center, Yerkes National Primate Research Center; C.H. Candler professor, Psychology Department, Emory University

    Monkey’s R Us

    Chimps are Right
    Bonobos are Left
    Humans are confused

    Are we just
    as capable of being right wingers,
    if we’d come through life on a
    different path? – Hark

    Not necessarily. Frans de Waal addresses that question

  • That’s quite amazing Jim. I hadn’t heard of The Flying Spaghetti Monster but I now sense that somewhere along the way I was touched by his noodly appendage.

    Makes as much sense as anything else I’ve heard in the way of Creation-myth’s and Omniscient Phantasm’s.

  • If we are to include “intelligent design” in our science courses, then
    in the spirit of fairness, I want to include the very valid concept of
    “intelligent arithmetic”. Everyone who has ever gone to school, has at
    some point realized they cannot understand the logic and design behind advanced arithmetic – and we never will. So that proves that math, aka arithmetic, must have been created by a higher power and that we can never understand it.

    Some will discount this theory and argue against including this in the
    curriculum. Those people must realize we need to present different
    theories in our classrooms and have open discussions to truly allow our students to have all the arguments and theories.

    We can teach all the paradoxes of math which proves it is not valid
    because if it were valid, there would not be any paradoxes. We can show
    the wonderousness of the designs and flows of logic which are apparent in
    the simpler models given to us to be able to appreciate the unknowable
    mechanics of “intelligent arithmetic”.

  • “How long can this go on? How long can so many people remain ignorant before the whole shooting match just collapses? When do we reach the tipping point?

    I’d rather not find out, but I have a bad feeling that I will.”

    No matter how fervently we may wish – or believe – the world worked in a particular way, the world works the way it has to work. Unless we come to terms with that in how we live our lives, reality is going to bite us in the ass. We might argue over why the value of G (the constant of universal gravitation) is what it is – whether God or the FSM made it that way when creating the universe, or – out of all possible universes – only those with this particular value of G can support life intelligent enough to ask the question in the first place – but if we decide for political, theological, or economic reasons that the value of G should be something different that what it is, and act on that belief, then we aren’t going to have much of a space program because our rockets won’t get off the ground or won’t go where we send them. If we accept a theory that is contradicted by the experimental evidence, it does not matter how sincere or heartfelt or pious our reasons are, we will eventually find ourselves in conflict with reality and reality always wins.

    This debate over ID is no different.

    I think that there is something in human nature that draws some people to embrace ID (and other strange explanations of the workings of the world). For some, that belief is not amenable to reasoned argument nor the presentation of evidence to the contrary. But I hope – for the sake of this country – that enough people in the right places can embrace reality and still behave with compassion to make the world a decent place to live.

    Your comment about reaching the tipping point struck a chord with me. I used to watch the unfolding of these debates with a bit more detachment than I do now. Now I have a child and I want her to grow up in a decent society. I do the best I can – I try to teach my students to think critically about the world and I hope that makes some small difference in their lives and the way they influence the world – however, I find myself feeling pretty pessimistic these days and wonder if it might be better for my family if we emigrated to Canada or Europe. (Does anybody out there have need of the services of a middle aged mathematician?)

  • A clever letter writer to a paper I read today tries to show that the unanimity of the scientific community against ID actually works in favor of creationism, since new breakthrough ideas he suggests will always face opposition and revolutionize dogmatic thinking. Only problem is of course the breakthrough already occurred in the 19th century, and the dogma refuted is that which he is trying to slip back into favor.

  • Can we all stop referring to ID as a “theory”? Use of that term indicates that there has been at least some testing that might indicate the potential for success in support of that idea. ID is nothing more than a “hypothesis,” something unsupported by any facts whatsoever. One can hypothesize that their dog is God but that sure as shit isn’t a theory. These nuts have won a portion of the PR battle over this if we keep improperly using terms that tend to give more support to their nutball ideas.

    • Comments are closed.