The name “Richard Gallagher” may be familiar to some readers. Gallagher is the editor of The Scientist, and last year, somewhat naively suggested that the evolution/creation “debate” was actually a good thing (you can find the text of his editorial at this site). Both PZ and Jason Rosenhouse took him to task for the editorial (and Gallagher replied, and PZ shot back). The next month, New Scientist then published a number of letters responding to the editorial, and Gallagher also wrote a reply (republished here by the Discovery Institute). Gallagher ended that piece with this quote:
Critical thinking has no place in science class? Really? That bodes incredibly poorly for the future of science teaching. We’re shelving our best weapon against intelligent design, and I find it incredibly sad that scientists who support evolution so strongly would have us shield growing young minds from the “dangers” of critical thinking.
If that’s not dogma, I don’t know what is.
…which of course doesn’t really address the arguments PZ and Jason had put forth–no one wants to “shield minds” from critical thinking at all.
So, of course it’s a bit depressing to see an editor of a life science magazine make strawman mischaracterizations of his fellow scientists who approach the issue differently (and, perhaps, have spent a bit more time in the trenches than Gallagher has). But Gallagher’s editorial in the July issue (“Zealots for Science”) makes me think that, maybe, hopefully, he’s starting to get it.
(Continued at Aetiology)
While channel surfing I came across an interview segment for an herbal remedy cream on one of the religious television stations. The interviewer was one of the regular preachers and the interview had all the religious trappings. It would seem the spiritual left and the religious right are meeting around the back.
Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)
Are they REALLY the spiritual left?
It reaks more of yet another attempt at getting people to waste money on useless stuff, rather than REAL spiritual people trying to spread the “good” of their teachings.
The big problem with the above, Gallagher’s earlier statement, is that it is so ill-defined, so open to interpretation. To IDists, “level playing field” means not privileging the scientific method, but allowing claims that intelligence was responsible for something to lack any rigorous scrutiny and detailed evidence.
You want a truly level playing field? Then ID will be treated like other pseudosciences, like Atlantis in the Bahamas, Velikovsky, and homeopathy. It might be mentioned as a failed claim, then, but little more attention will be paid to it.
I’ve always been one who thought that dealing with genuine stumbling blocks to students’ understanding are worth addressing, however. Because ID is a common pseudoscience impeding learning, it could be granted more exposure in schools than other pseudosciences are.
But what would that mean? What is “full information” with respect to ID? “A designer has been proposed to be responsible for life, even though we have no evidence in favor of rational design of organisms.” Does ID go beyond that, when stated honestly?
How long can any “instruction” in ID go, when treated according to the scientific method? Are specious attacks against evolution supposed to be included? Are we, for example, to include Dembski’s arguments against evolution, even though they’re non-empirical and children wouldn’t understand his claims? What sort of “level playing field” would that be?
I’m not sure how Gallagher’s latest relates to his earlier statements. The truth is that one could probably use either ID or homeopathy to contrast with the scientific method, but both are probably too involved (in the arguments of their proponents, that is) to address more than cursorily in a biology class. I would hope that Gallagher would begin to see this, yet I can’t say that his latest article indicates that he does (he doesn’t address education and the “spiritual left”, from what I gather).
I’d also guess that he hasn’t been teaching biology to young humans at all recently. His jibe about the value of critical thinking is well and good in the abstract, but in reality teachers are striving to teach the basics of critical thinking to their young charges. Most below college level (and many at or above college level) are not equipped to recognize the superiority of a detailed analysis of the derivative nature of life, over the claim that a hugely capable god or alien produced life. The latter “explanation” sounds very good and simple to those who don’t worry about what a vestigial organ implies, or why rational design is lacking in organisms.
The fact is that Gallagher does sound somewhat like he did before in one crucial aspect–he has a kind of naive abstract take on how to address both ID and the “spiritual left”. In both cases he wants to expose the “core weaknesses”, as if this is going to lead to capitulation on either hand. Sure, loan a book to them (or let sixth graders decide if ID is sensible), and they’ll understand. Most won’t even read it, and if they were likely to understand it, they probably wouldn’t have fallen for pseudoscience in the first place.
The truth is that probably the best cure for pseudoscience is teaching science without any more diversions than are necessary. People are not likely to recognize the failings of pseudoscience until they have learned some science.
And any considerable treatment of either ID or New Age claptrap in biology classes is likely to detract from the one weapon that can defeat them, scientific education.
What we need to worry about is how little evolution is being taught today.
Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm
Glen, your comments should come with Abstracts.
That sums it all up nicely. I’d just toss on the idea that teaching good scientific method is equally important - it’s good training to evaluate things in one’s life as well. I don’t directly use my degree (Psych and some neuroscience), but the methods are invaluable.
I personally think this “spiritual left” of his is more a composite boogieman than anything else. (I mean I meditate and I like recycling and I’m a Democrat, am *I* spiritual left?) The real, coherent, organized, identifiable threat science faces now is ID and the religious right.
I agree that the “spiritual left” is a lot more nebulous than the “religious right,” but I disagree that there’s not a real threat there. Indeed, a lot of biomedical scientists would say that these types of beliefs (natural is always better; medicines, especially vaccines, are bad; animals should never be used in research; HIV doesn’t cause AIDS; etc.) are a bigger threat to science than even ID, because they directly affect the health and well-being of millions of people every day.
DragonScholar asks:
What Gallagher (and Silver, I presume) are talking about aren’t just the stereotypical “hippie, granola” types. You mention meditation, and that’s a good example. Lots of people meditate, for various reasons. But are you promoting meditation as a cure for cancer? Multiple sclerosis? Acne? :) Especially in lieu of other, established treatments, and in light of studies that show there’s no improvement between groups that use meditation and those that don’t? That’s the difference.
While many on the right are anti-science because they believe it conflicts with their beliefs about god, there are those on the left who are very into conspiracy theories, the “don’t trust the government” mentality left over from the 60s, I guess. And especially with our current leaders, anything and everything is because of “big business,” and an oft-cited scapegoat is “big pharma.” Therefore, ineffective but “natural” herbal remedies are preferred to effective but “pharma-tainted” drugs, even something as basic as antibiotics. Scientists are distrusted because many of us receive government funding via the NIH, and therefore, we’re also “tainted” since government–>controlled by “big pharma”–>scientists are pharmaceutical shills. I see this time and time again on my blog from people who disbelieve all AIDS research, vaccine research, even influenza research. They’re more fragmented and don’t have a funding powerhouse like the DI to unite them under the “big tent”, but they’re out there, and they’re also a threat to science.
I believe the people Tara mentions are threats to themselves and their kids, but are they a threat to science?
That’s a good question. I’d argue yes. They’re not campaigning to add their “alternatives” to our primary schools (since they’re really not appropriate at that level), but they use the same tactics as the creationists in order to instill doubt about the entire scientific process, and the people who carry it out. I certainly consider that a threat.
I see your point.
I found out recently that homeopathy is growing at 20% a year right now.
I came across this excellent essay by Dr. Massimo Pigliucci a while back. Part of it deals with anti-intellectualism and seemingly it’s not confined to fundamentalists as Tara was saying. I’ve actually heard some of the views that Dr. Piglliucci talks about being expressed from the pulpit !
http://www.jodkowski.pl/ek/MPigliucci001.html
Tara,
Not quite 100% sure WHAT he means, which is why I feel his idea of a “Spiritual Left” is really just some vaugel poppycock to put a label on a bunch of phenomena. These phenomena lack the coherent reach and organization of ID (so far), and the strong religious backing and political elements. If he’s going to take on threats to science, there’s some very large ones in front of his face over some hippy-and-granola type and people that practice quack medicine. It still sounds rather vague to me, so I’ll confess my biases upfront that it sounds like he’s trying to find a new villain.
Related, this is something that contributes to my curiosity - I think the ID movement is having a very corrosive effect on dialogue about science and responsibility. It promotes the idea that anyone dissenting from an idea means there’s a controversy - as opposed to a lone nut, or a few people with an agenda.
Science is NOT about giving different sides equal time.
DragonScholar wrote:
I’ve always thought of the Spiritual Left as people like Deepak Chopra and his followers:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepa[…]b_19139.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepa[…]b_25198.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepa[…]_b_4003.html
Norm,
You may have something there actually (isn’t he technically an IDer?). Though reading through the articles, I like the idea that if there is a God, he/she needs atheists.
Even a tiny dose of homeopathy can have a powerful effect… Still.
My impression is that superstitious leftists tend to leave the teaching of science alone because most of them assume that the serious sciences, properly understood, actually agree with their ideas or at worst are irrelevant to what they care about. I know umpteen astrologers, dream guides, and even a stray alchemist or two. None of these largely harmless and often rather agreeable characters expects their ideas to turn up in the real sciences. In fact, though, once again, it’s just an impression, the New Age crowd seems to believe in their own stuff with their fingers crossed. I’m sure there are plenty of exceptions, but for lots of ‘em, all the higher freebus is essentially just a hobby. Is there a leftist answer to the Discovery Institute? (real question)
That said, I’m sure that alternative medicine makes a net contribution to the American death rate and that the more romantic versions of environmentalism tend to muddy the serious discussion of environmental issues. I just don’t think there is anything like an equivalence between goofy rightists and goofy leftists as far as their respective real-world impact on biology and the teaching of biology goes.
Leftist? That’s surely a joke. The cheapest it gets with Chopra is about $35 or so for a few hours of drivel. Some years ago Chopra and if i remember right was hawking tickets for yet another one of those vague lectures joined by none other than one of MK Gandhi’s grandsons - Arun Gandhi.
Since I first heard about ID in the late 1990s, I thought as Gallagher did. That is, I thought it would make teaching biology in high school fun, a good way to bring up the evidence for evolution by adding cultural controversy. In fact, Ken Miller does a great job of presenting rebuttals to Behe’s Black Box examples, as he famously did for the Dover trial recently.
Having read the comments, I still hope there’s some way to show the kids in school that the biology teacher does not avoid ID/creationism out of fear or ignorance of it, but because of its lack of merit and content. (and without offending their parents and church) I know it isn’t practical to include it, but I fear some who are indoctrinated into creationism already won’t even listen until the existence of their side is acknowledged.
My high school teacher did a great job with this, I thought. When it was time to teach the evolution chapter, he said, “We are about to go into a chapter that some students might find in disagreement with their religions, but what will be presented is just the science, and though you are not required to believe it, you are required to know it.” The comment never applied to me, but the students in the class to whom it was applicable, relaxed a bit and went with it. I am not sure if it changed their views, but at least they were being offered a way out of the ignorance.
how do you acknowledge that which does not exist?
what you are asking is for a science teacher to acknowledge, for however brief a time, that faith is relevant to science.
even Miller would disagree with that.
It goes FAR beyond the whole ID thing; hence the wedge strategy.
It isn’t enough for any of these folks that you address the vacuity of ID; ID is simply a painted door for the idea that religious faith can substitute for science.
to present the issue in any other way is essentially incorrect and does nobody any favors, least of all the kids themselves.
this is why Ghallager is considered naive, and I still haven’t seen much to change that idea, personally, his latest musings aside.
he still holds a more positive view of the average teens’ ability to differentiate data from mythos than is warranted by the current evidence.
again, it’s easy to lose the point that ID has nothing to do with science.
there is nothing to acknowledge, even if one wanted to.
Sir Toe_Jam,
The social controversy exists. And that isn’t appropriate to bring up in science class, even though the social controversy is, however vaguely, about that science.
I was thinking more along the lines of defining what science is, and what it isn’t. What pseudo-science looks like, using ID as an example. It’s just an idea.
it’s all about timing.
by the time students get some knowledge about how science works, how one gathers evidence, and what the nature of evidence is, THEN they might be ready to differentiate appropriately between science and psuedoscience; and it can be a productive discussion. Hence, Alan McNeil’s course at Cornell comes to mind.
usually though, that doesn’t happen until college.
In your high school, you were lucky to likely only have a few students with dissenting viewpoints, and even then, the issue of faith was entirely bypassed by your teacher, not addressed. In fact, the idea that “ but what will be presented is just the science” is exactly what I am saying. Much harder to do this in some schools in kansas. Ask Jack Krebs. ;)
If a teacher feels obligated to give a reason (I would) the only reason that needs be given is that we teach what has been shown to be utilitarian and productive in answering questions arising from observations. The scientific method is what we teach, simply because it works. It displaced religious philosophy for that one reason alone, and it’s the lone reason why we no longer teach any religious philosophy AS science, regardless of whatever clothes it dresses up in.
This works regardless of whether you are talking about quantum theory or evolutionary theory, or weather forecasting, for that matter.
saying that “you need to learn it for testing purposes” is a cop-out i see all too frequently.
I understand you want to utilize the obvious differences in evidence supporting the ToE vs. ID (near infinite vs. absolute zero), but this really avoids the heart of the issue, and grants validity that ID doesn’t even merit.
It’s the APPROACH that needs the focus for beginning students in science. getting into the details regarding the vacuity of psuedoreligious claptrap is simply a waste of time that a good teacher has too little of already.
It depends on what the aim is … If our goal is to have kids drop ID beliefs, forget it. They weren’t won to those beliefs by science, and they won’t be won AWAY from them by science, either.
Alas, I have resigned myself to the simple fact that a large proportion of Americans will always be utterly pig-ignorant and creduluous about their pet beliefs, whether they are homeopathy, ESP, Roswell or ID.
Speaking about the religious right and the spiritual left, I happen to get a copy of Jerry Falwell’s National Liberty Journal regularly (don’t ask), and almost every third page is full of hokey alternative medicines, herbal whatsits, energized waters, magnetic jewelry (maybe his audience is full of people with bad knees?) that sort of thing. Aside from all the jam-packed hokey articles about Christian persecution, murder of pre-born children, the corruption of marriage and consequently American society, Liberalism, and of course no issue would be complete without some dirty words for Evolution.
Toe_Jam and Lenny, thanks for addressing my comments. I know you guys are right. And Rev, I know you’ve been in the trenches. But it’s hard for me to let go of this pet idea that as a teacher, I can make a difference in how people view creationism, and whether it seems acceptable to them. Sure, I could teach critical thinking skills and leave it at that.
The idea of even mentioning ID is probably unconstitutional. But, a teacher could ask a hypothetical question that sounds something like the questions that ID-ers say evolution theory hasn’t addressed. Such as, “What is the evidence for evolution?”, “How do complex forms evolve?”, etc. And then go on to present the answers in a way that involves all the required material anyway. It doesn’t have to be an obvious comparison. For those students who have heard creationist arguments, it would cause them to pay attention. Of course, questions like “How does information increase?” would be too involved to answer thoroughly, but even that could be addressed in a summed up, general way while discussing mutations and pointing out that knockout mutations are only one of the kinds that can occur, as the raw material for natural selection.
Also, most creationists don’t understand what is meant by “natural selection,” maybe that’s why they always skip it. A fair amount of time should be spent teaching what exactly that means, and how many different factors it depends on. As soon as you mention “sexual selection” to a high-schooler, the ears perk up. At least they are likely to remember that one.
Of course there are a lot of questions there isn’t time to get into, but I am sure a fair amount could be covered just by teaching the substance of the course. I’m not sure about freshmen biology, but the AP biology, sure.
And I think if more teachers thouhgt about creationism and how to sublty combat it, the problem of ignorance about what evolution means, what it says or doesn’t say, and which areas of life it applies to, wouldn’t be so great. I am optimistic that knowledge can empower even the indoctrinated.
…his idea of a “Spiritual Left” is really just some vaugel poppycock to put a label on a bunch of phenomena. These phenomena lack the coherent reach and organization of ID (so far), and the strong religious backing and political elements.
Part of the problem, as I see it, is that while the “spiritual left” (yes, an overly vague term) aren’t as willfully dishonest or malicious as the creationists, their mistrust of things scientific, and their rejection of basic principles of science, leave them unable to discern and reject such anti-scientific con-games. This makes them easy pickings for the demagogue or con-man – of any persuasion – who uses the right slogans to appeal to the right emotions. They’re not creationists now, but they could easily be manipulated into becoming creationists, or $cientologists, or Moonies, or Islamofascists, tomorrow.
And, in fact, I have seen many nice, harmless airheads become rabid-born-again-Christian airheads – creationism, intolerance and all.
Alas, I have resigned myself to the simple fact that a large proportion of Americans will always be utterly pig-ignorant and creduluous about their pet beliefs, whether they are homeopathy, ESP, Roswell or ID.
Some stupidity will not be crushed by the science-education prong of our attack on ignorance. That’s why we need the religious-education prong as well. As long as people have these pet beliefs, it’s important for honest ministers to appeal to these beliefs and guide them to a more honest way of thinking. Chiefly’s numerous links to mainstream-Christian statements on science, in a previous thread, prove that this can work.
I have to wonder which is actually responsible for more deaths: people turning away from effective treatments in favor of “alternative” nonsense, or people who are given the wrong drugs, contract a noscomial infection, or perish from complications of a unnecessary procedure.
Modern medical science has much to recommend it, but at present I suspect it kills far more people than die because they don’t use its treatments, at least in the Western world. Does that make modern medicine more dangerous than its absense? No.
The spiritual left and the religious right are both dangerous to science. When I have had to work late nights or early mornings, I would listen to Coast To Coast AM (best known by create Art Bell) to help keep me awake while driving home. The show is filled with wackos of all stripes (and far too seldom, a real scientist). Many are just hucksters for books and videos, but several are sincere. The larger threat to science education comes from the religious right, however, since lawmakers are more likely to mandate instruction in creationism or ID than they are instruction in alien abductions, crop circles, remote viewing, and homeopathy.
Edwin Hensley wrote:
And both sides have active, conscious liars who make a profit peddling garbagexternal" title="Edit this Comment">Edit
I suspect that an awful lot of people die in the US simply because they don’t have money for effective health care, much less for effective preventive medicine.
That, of course, is a political, rather than a scientific or medical, problem. One that we as a nation show no inclination whatsoever to do anything about.
Kind of like “education”. (shrug)
It is indeed ironic that the Internet, the source of such a vast store of carefully-won knowledge and information, is so dominated by the kooks and loons. Heck, any fruitloop with a crackpot “theory” can put up a website and reach more people in a month than best-selling authors could reach in their entire lifetimes just thirty years ago.
Yes, the Net is a vast storehouse of knowledge and information.
Most of that, however, is pure BS.
Usually the change itself isn’t really all that large. Hardcore Trotskyites who hate liberals find it pretty easy to become hardcore neoconservatives who, uh, hate liberals. Evangelical intolerant fundies who hate moderate religions can easily become evangelical intolerant atheists who, uh, hate moderate religions.
Not much changes, except which side of the aisle you’re sitting on. Under the feathers, they’re still the s