To Teach Evolution, You Have to Understand Creationists

[Inferno]

The following short piece is my reply to To Teach Evolution, You Have to Understand Creationists.

If you follow the news about culture wars, evolution, and creationism, you've probably seen it by now. Earlier this fall, U.S. Rep. Paul C. Broun Jr., Republican of Georgia who ran unopposed for re-election, said in a widely distributed video that evolution, embryology, and the Big Bang theory were "lies straight from the pit of hell."

I don't agree. But the ferocious response to Broun's remarks tells us more about the widespread ignorance among evolution supporters than it does about ignorance among creationists.

...

I disagree with Broun's views on evolution,and on a host of other topics, for that matter. But if we hope to understand creationism, we need to abandon the trope that only the ignorant can oppose mainstream evolutionary science. It is a comfortable delusion, a head-in-the-sand approach to improving evolution education in the United States. In the end, it stems from a shocking ignorance among evolutionists about the nature of creationist beliefs.

This is basically the central claim. Mr. Laats argues that, although creationism is wrong, evolutionists are under a few serious misapprehensions. I will challenge that claim.

First of all, Broun is no ignoramus. He holds a bachelor's degree in chemistry and an M.D. He is the most recent in a long line of educated creationists.

This is the first part where I take issue. Holding a degree of any kind does not make you intelligent, it makes you, as Mr. Laats rightly states, educated. To be educated is to know disparate facts, to be intelligent (or smart) is to be able to combine them, to apply them in new situations, to understand them. Educated might also be substituted with "learned".

The term "ignorant" (Laats' "ignoramus") is often defined in two ways:
1) Ignorant as in stupid, unaware of the facts.
2) Ignorant as in lacking the capacity to combine the facts.

Examples:

Merriam Webster[/url]"]a : destitute of knowledge or education <an ignorant society>; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified <parents ignorant of modern mathematics>
b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence <ignorant errors>

The word does, after all, come from "to ignore", to be aware of something but to dismiss it. That's not the hallmark of an intelligent person, though it might well be that of an educated person.

Bryan's defense in 1925 could be revived by Broun today: "Christianity has nothing to fear from any truth; no fact disturbs the Christian religion or the Christian. It is the unsupported guess that is substituted for science to which opposition is made."

Just a brief commentary, this has nothing to do with the argument: This supports what many people have been saying for a long time! NO MATTER WHAT FACTS there are, they do not challenge religion (and Christianity specifically) because religion is so far removed from the facts!

The notion that only the ignorant can oppose evolution does not hold water. As the political scientists Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer demonstrate in Evolution, Creationism, and the Battle to Control America's Classrooms (Cambridge University Press, 2010), a slim majority of Americans are aware that mainstream scientific opinion supports evolution. Yet even among those 52 percent of Americans who know that scientists support evolution, large majorities still want schools to teach creationism. And, among those teachers who teach young-earth creationism, a majority,like Broun,hold a bachelor's degree or higher in science and almost half have completed 40 or more college credits in biology.

Again, the distinction between "intelligent" and "educated" must be made. There are quite a few educated people out there who are, sadly, not as intelligent as, to pick but one example, I am. I am certainly not as educated as Broun, Bergman or Wells, but I am, and this I claim without being overconfident, certainly more intelligent.

Second, statistics are simply not supportive of Mr. Laats argument. Why is it that poll after poll after poll shows that those who accept ID/Creationism tend to be less educated, tend to not know the proper definition of evolution, tend to show that teachers tend to be more supportive of evolution than the general public, to say nothing of scientists at large?

That's not to say that this is the only reason, of course not. I would immediately applaud and support Mr. Laats if he said "psychology is one aspect, intelligence is another". His complete dismissal of the intelligence-aspect is what irks me.

As it stands, scientists' blundering hostility toward creationism actually encourages creationist belief. By offering a stark division between religious faith and scientific belief, evolutionary scientists have pushed creationists away from embracing evolutionary ideas. And, by assuming that only ignorance could explain creationist beliefs, scientists have unwittingly fostered bitter resentment among the creationists, the very people with whom they should be hoping to connect.

One right, one wrong.
Many (if not most) scientists on the evolution side of the "debate" have repeatedly come out and said "this does not harm your faith". Ken Miller, Bob T. Bakker and Theodosius G. Dobzhansky are/were undoubtedly religious, Christian even, and also strong supporters of evolution. Eugenie C. Scott is an atheist, a supporter of evolution and also says that evolution does not harm faith. In fact, the whole NCSE says the same thing.
How could scientists be any more forthcoming?

That being said, I try to (and often fail at it!) refrain from calling creationists stupid, I do not however reserve the same respect for creationISM. Hate the game, not the player, (s)he's just playing the rules.
If scientists have done that, then they are not doing a great job of promoting science, as indeed many scientists do fail to do. That's a shame, but I think I know (part of) the reason: Many scientists I know are not exactly what you might call extroverted. They are as such not the best people to promote science. Some scientists are good at that, I need only mention Neil deGrasse Tyson, Carl Sagan, Bryan Cox and Richard Dawkins, among a few others. But generally, that statement holds true.

Nor can we take solace in the delusion that these teachers are somehow rogue agents of a vast right-wing creationist conspiracy. As Berkman and Plutzer demonstrate, the creationist beliefs of teachers embody the creationist beliefs of Americans in general. The teachers are not ignorant of evolution, yet they choose to reject it.

... and are, as such, not intelligent, but merely educated.
Because of my above paragraph (hate the game, not the player...) I must add one thing: This is a state that can be remedied, so I'm not calling this an inability. I am not calling creationists stupid, I am calling them, which is even worse, unwilling. Unwilling to learn, unwilling to correct themselves, unwilling to change.

More-focused studies support those findings. David Long, an anthropologist and science educator now at George Mason University, conducted an in-depth ethnographic study of creationists in college, reported in his Evolution and Religion in American Education (Springer, 2011). Among his batch of creationist biology majors, only one abandoned her creationist beliefs. Most striking, this woman was not convinced by the scientific evidence in her biology classes; rather, her home life in high school, including an out-of-wedlock pregnancy, had turned her away from her conservative Protestant upbringing. Of the biology majors Long studied, none was convinced of the truth of evolutionary science by scientific coursework alone.

Thus supporting my hypothesis that the two (the intelligence and the psychology aspect) go hand in hand. This is easily evident from the psychology of belief series, a series so excellent everyone here will have seen it, so I don't need to link to it. One thing becomes obvious: New (and better) evidence needs to be "thrown at the person", otherwise other junk can fill the mind of the person if all the crap leaves.
I have to state it once again: Psychology is one, certainly very important, aspect of the issue, but so is education and intelligence.
Case in point: Atheists who do not accept evolution. Mr Laat, where is your argument now?

This commitment to creationism by those who know the facts of evolutionary science makes no sense to mainstream scientists, many of whom have always been utterly flummoxed by the durability of creationism.

I'm not sure about mainstream scientists, but it certainly isn't news to any of us. In fact, Aron repeats this every time I've seen him debate a creationist: (Paraphrased) "You will not change your mind, no matter the facts, because you have an a priori assumption that you have to uphold."
Christopher Hitchens said much the same about religion in general: (again paraphrased) "Those on this side of the argument can immediately tell you what would change their mind, but those on the other (religious) side can not, because they have a set of doctrines and dogma that not only encourages them to dismiss any evidence to the contrary, but does so at the penalty of eternal damnation."

And a snarky insistence that Broun does not have the qualifications to serve on the House science committee blunders into an uncomfortable truth: Broun's views may fairly represent those of his constituents. Do we really want to demand that an elected official not fight for the ideas in which his constituents believe?

I would actually be in favour of him representing what is (at least to a degree) true, rather than something people believe but which is obviously wrong.
A politician is someone who pleases the people, a good politician is someone who serves the people by doing things that, at first, the public might not favour.

Broun may be wrong about evolution, embryology, and the Big Bang. But his scientific errors do not instantly disqualify him as a representative of the American people.

I'm not an american, so who am I to say who is to represent the american people? Well for one, I am a concerned citizen of the world and the U.S, whether we like it or not, is the dominant super-power. Matt Damon sums it up best:



If we have nutjobs receiving divine revelations from God with their "finger on the fucking button" (R.S.F.U. Bill Hicks), then that can put us in serious danger. Christopher Hitchens again said something very similar: (again paraphrased) "What is it like to have a totalitarian, theocratic regime with the nuclear bomb? Well we're about to find out, with Iran trying very hard to get it."

Brouns views should disqualify him as a representative, it is a testament to the idioty of the American people (and the American electoral system?) that such a person can have a position of influence.

Broun,along with other informed, educated creationists,simply rejects those facts. Evolution educators do not simply need to spread the word about evolution. We need to convince and convert Americans who sincerely hold differing understandings about the nature and meaning of science.

Now this, I can get behind.
But at the same time do not forget that while this is going on, and I think that public schools are a good place to start, do not forget to teach the facts.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

This commitment to creationism by those who know the facts of evolutionary science makes no sense to mainstream scientists, many of whom have always been utterly flummoxed by the durability of creationism.

I dispute this claim.

I have encountered two or three creationists that knew the proper definition of evolution, yet alone any other facts about it (one of them I am sure is a troll). Sitting down and explaining the facts of evolution is always my first step when dealing with creationist, because of the simple fact that none of them knows it.

Inferno points out the difference between educated and intelligent, but I would not even go that far. Dealing with creationists has shown me one thing, they might have an education, but it is not in biology or evolution (even if their degree says they do). This comes from the fact that all creationists I have dealt with (even the ones that know the definition of evolution) still construct straw men of it in order to argue against it. Thus, I would conclude that even though a creationist might have a degree (even if that degree seems to be in something relevant) does not mean they are educated in the subject, let alone intelligent enough to understand it.

Inferno, nice post. It could be a blog post.

 

[nemesiss]

here is my stab at that blog

I disagree with Broun's views on evolution,and on a host of other topics, for that matter. But if we hope to understand creationism, we need to abandon the trope that only the ignorant can oppose mainstream evolutionary science.

im curious what there is to understand about creationism, other that it's an out-of-date explenation that can not explain the diversity of life in any decent form in regards to the facts.

First of all, Broun is no ignoramus. He holds a bachelor's degree in chemistry and an M.D. He is the most recent in a long line of educated creationists.

there is a huge difference between being smart and saying something smart. if he would hold a bachelor in a field such as biology, then his arguments on evolution would atleast be better constructed.

As U.S. secretary of state, Bryan noted, he had met with "kings, emperors, and prominent public men." Throughout his career, Bryan complained he had never been called "an ignoramus ... by anyone except an evolutionist."

my guess is that the evolutionist had the balls to say it, while the rest were just thinking it.

Bryan's defense in 1925 could be revived by Broun today: "Christianity has nothing to fear from any truth; no fact disturbs the Christian religion or the Christian.

whenever i hear this argument, i think of Galileo.

As it stands, scientists' blundering hostility toward creationism actually encourages creationist belief. By offering a stark division between religious faith and scientific belief, evolutionary scientists have pushed creationists away from embracing evolutionary ideas. And, by assuming that only ignorance could explain creationist beliefs, scientists have unwittingly fostered bitter resentment among the creationists, the very people with whom they should be hoping to connect.

When creationists make really stupid arguments such as "if humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?" that can easily be attributed to a huge ignorance on how evolutionairy processes work. Since we have no scientific evidence for creationism... why should scientists take it even seriously? and if still would what could be the cause of disconnect between the scientists and other people... let me qoute what the blog itself to answer it's own question.

a slim majority of Americans are aware that mainstream scientific opinion supports evolution. Yet even among those 52 percent of Americans who know that scientists support evolution, large majorities still want schools to teach creationism.... the creationist beliefs of teachers embody the creationist beliefs of Americans in general. The teachers are not ignorant of evolution, yet they choose to reject it.

This commitment to creationism by those who know the facts of evolutionary science makes no sense to mainstream scientists, many of whom have always been utterly flummoxed by the durability of creationism.

can someone get this guy to have a chat with PZ Myers, to talk about being an evolutionist in the biblebelt?

If we hope to spread the science of evolution, it does not help to charge forward in blissful ignorance about the nature and meanings of creationism. Broun may be wrong about evolution, embryology, and the Big Bang. But his scientific errors do not instantly disqualify him as a representative of the American people. Nor can they be explained away as a product of ignorance.

again, creationism has no scientific value. however, scientist may need to take a more attention to the undermining of scientific facts by creationists. if we can not be explained as ignorance, we could explain it by dishonesty.

Rather, those of us who care about promoting evolution education must admit the hard truth. It is not simply that creationists such as Broun have not heard the facts about evolution. Broun,along with other informed, educated creationists,simply rejects those facts. Evolution educators do not simply need to spread the word about evolution. We need to convince and convert Americans who sincerely hold differing understandings about the nature and meaning of science.

i guess there is atleast something we do agree on.

 

[Inferno]

This commitment to creationism by those who know the facts of evolutionary science makes no sense to mainstream scientists, many of whom have always been utterly flummoxed by the durability of creationism.

I dispute this claim.

I have encountered two or three creationists that knew the proper definition of evolution, yet alone any other facts about it (one of them I am sure is a troll). Sitting down and explaining the facts of evolution is always my first step when dealing with creationist, because of the simple fact that none of them knows it.

Inferno points out the difference between educated and intelligent, but I would not even go that far. Dealing with creationists has shown me one thing, they might have an education, but it is not in biology or evolution (even if their degree says they do). This comes from the fact that all creationists I have dealt with (even the ones that know the definition of evolution) still construct straw men of it in order to argue against it. Thus, I would conclude that even though a creationist might have a degree (even if that degree seems to be in something relevant) does not mean they are educated in the subject, let alone intelligent enough to understand it.

Inferno, nice post. It could be a blog post.

Thank you, sir.

While I would generally agree with your rebuttal, I would like to point out one thing: It seems that Mr. Laats is constructing his argument on people like Bergmann and Wells, not on the broad masses of creationists. Which is strange, that's what he should be doing.
That's why I made the distinction between educated and intelligent.

I did pick up your argument very briefly, when I said: "[creationists] tend to not know the proper definition of evolution".

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

While I would generally agree with your rebuttal, I would like to point out one thing: It seems that Mr. Laats is constructing his argument on people like Bergmann and Wells, not on the broad masses of creationists. Which is strange, that's what he should be doing.
That's why I made the distinction between educated and intelligent.

I do understand that, but I do believe that Mr. Laats is giving Mr. Bergmann and Mr. Wells far too much credit. I would bet (and I would actually wager money on this) that if someone asked either one of them to define evolution, they would give a wrong answer. My point is that on paper, it says they are educated, but in practice, I doubt they know the first thing about evolution.

 

[Inferno]

Just to add something: The following is an article in the German newspaper "Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung". It's two paragraphs long, so by all means put it into google translate to understand it.

In it, the author suggests that we should do three things to combat Creationism/ID. One of them is relevant to our side, one to the other side and silly (priests should not overstate moral implications of Evolution) and the last is, in my view, stupid. (People like Dawkins and Dennett should shut up because they're strident and shrill atheists. Well fuck that.)

The relevant argument though is this: Results in evolution should be (better) communicated to the public.
The author talks of a University where there is no (proper) introduction to evolution, even in biology. That's a travesty! I'm in favour of every student having to go through a bit of everything. Of the 180 ECTS (60 ECTS per year) we have to rack up for a Bachelors degree, surely 30 ECTS can be spent on a general education, spread out over the years. An introduction in science, one in law, one in economy, one in a language, one in philosophy...

In any case, that introduction to evolution. If you're studying biology and you don't know about it, how the hell are you going to cope? I seriously don't know, it's baffling.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

I happen to think the main cause of any such outdated, well debunked, bullshit being widely believed is parenting. I don't think that teaching evolution properly is going to fix anything. Mainly because if someone doesn't believe in science and reason in the first place, not even the best educator can teach them science.

I say, first, teach kids to think for themselves, not believe anything they're told blindly - show them how reason and science have been, are and will be good ways to find out truths about the universe we live in.


I shall explain further when I come back. For now, dinner time.

Cheers.

 

[Inferno]

I happen to think the main cause of any such outdated, well debunked, bullshit being widely believed is parenting. I don't think that teaching evolution properly is going to fix anything. Mainly because if someone doesn't believe in science and reason in the first place, not even the best educator can teach them science.

I say, first, teach kids to think for themselves, not believe anything they're told blindly - show them how reason and science have been, are and will be good ways to find out truths about the universe we live in.


I shall explain further when I come back. For now, dinner time.

Cheers.

I agree with what you say, yet how do you want to do that? Compulsory school attendance?

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

I happen to think the main cause of any such outdated, well debunked, bullshit being widely believed is parenting. I don't think that teaching evolution properly is going to fix anything. Mainly because if someone doesn't believe in science and reason in the first place, not even the best educator can teach them science.

I say, first, teach kids to think for themselves, not believe anything they're told blindly - show them how reason and science have been, are and will be good ways to find out truths about the universe we live in.


I shall explain further when I come back. For now, dinner time.

Cheers.

I agree with what you say, yet how do you want to do that? Compulsory school attendance?

I don't know - for a very simple reason: I'm not aware of how exactly science is being taught in high school, not in my country nor in anywhere else in the world. I have nearly no science-related subjects and I don't know how the system works in the rest of the world.

I will say the following though - from my 5th school year forward I've had science related subjects until a year ago, and I must say that we were barely taught anything about the scientific method. We just went straight into the cheese. We weren't explained what the scientific method is, how it works, how it's been proven to work and how we can rely on it for the future.

In high school, probably all of this is explained, but I fear it's too late for some. Then again, I don't know anything about high school science.

Perhaps you guys could try and tell me a bit about how you learned science in high school.

I'M IN THE DARK HERE.