PZ Myers. 2005 Mar 20. Theory. <http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/theory/>. Accessed 2008 Dec 01.
Posted on M00o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr on Sunday, March 20, 2005
Theory
Gary Farber (you all remember Gary, right? He had a bit of a dry patch a while back, for good reason, but he's been blogging up a storm lately, so go get reacquainted) sent me a link to this nicely done overview of the meaning of the word "theory" that was just published in the Washington Post:
If you want to know one reason why the debate over teaching evolution remains so contentious, consider the stickers some school boards have wanted to paste in high school biology textbooks. They label evolution a "theory, not a fact," suggesting that an alternative explanation is possible.
It's a clever strategy. Even people sympathetic to evolution often don't know how to respond to the assertion that evolution is "just a theory." And the opposite claim -- that evolution is a fact -- can generate skepticism among those who don't like to be told what to think.
But these stickers use the words "theory" and "fact" in a very misleading way. The biggest problem is that "theory" has two separate meanings. In common usage, "theory" means an idea or a hunch: "I have a theory about why she left him." No one really knows what the reasons were, but we can guess.
That's not what "theory" means within science. When scientists speak of the theory of gravitation, cell theory or evolutionary theory, they are talking about scientific concepts that have been so thoroughly tested that they are very unlikely to change. Theories are the results of decades or centuries of scientific effort. They draw on many interconnected observations and ideas. They are the end products of science, not stages on the way to the truth.
In science, a hunch or conjecture is called a hypothesis, not a theory. When Copernicus proposed in the early 16th century that the Earth revolves around the sun rather than vice versa, his idea was a hypothesis. But four centuries of observation and thinking have convinced us that heliocentrism is a theory, not just an intriguing idea. It is compatible with everything we know about the solar system and explains observations that cannot be explained in other ways.
Ideally, English would have a different word for these comprehensive organizing concepts in science. But for now, "theory" is doing double duty. So calling evolution a theory may seem to denigrate it in everyday terms, but in scientific terms that's high praise.
"Fact," on the other hand, is a word that makes many scientists uncomfortable. It implies that something is true beyond doubt. But the defining characteristic of a scientific statement is that its accuracy can be tested by comparing it to observations in the natural world; in other words, a scientific statement must be falsifiable. Accepting that something is true beyond doubt requires an act of faith. But that is a religious matter -- and science cannot aspire to the certainty of religion.
Many scientists are as loose with these terms as nonscientists are. They, too, speak blithely of theories when they mean hypotheses, despite the grief it causes evolutionary biologists. Partly, they are being careless. And maybe they lean toward the term because they know that theories are much more solidly established than are hypotheses. (Your idea may be a hypothesis, but mine is a theory.)
Evolution is not a hypothesis. It is a rich theory, built on hundreds of years of scientific research, that explains why the biological world is the way it is. It provides a mechanism for the continual change of biological organisms over time, beginning with the simplest replicating molecules. It accounts for the simultaneous diversity and unity of the living things we see around us.
The piece hammers on the topic even more, but it's an important concept, and one we have to take back from the creationists. One other important thing: never, ever refer to Intelligent Design creationism as a theory. It isn't one. I'd argue that it doesn't even meet the standards to warrant calling it a hypothesis.
More advice:
Despite the logical flaws in creationist arguments, scientists would be well served by finding more constructive ways to engage in the debate. When creationism is denied a hearing, those who are ambivalent have fewer opportunities to evaluate the evidence. Religion should not be taught in science classes, but suppressing discussion of creationism can create the mistaken impression that scientists have something to hide. And creationism is far from absent in many high school biology classes -- surveys reveal that many teachers already discuss it.
I agree that creationism must be engaged, but we should not do it on terms dictated by the creationists. When asked to "debate", don't bother. Instead, plan an independent and informative lecture or panel discussion on evolution, by competent biologists or other relevant scientists, to parallel or follow up the usual nonsense they will babble about. Rebut them on appropriate terms, don't dignify them by joining their circus.
Posted by PZ Myers on 03/20 at 04:18 PM
Creationism • Science • 1 Trackbacks • Other weblogs • Permalink
Creationism • Science • 1 Trackbacks • Other weblogs • Permalink
-
PZ advised...
Rebut them on appropriate terms, don't dignify them by joining their circus.
Amen!#: Posted by on 03/20 at 04:40 PM -
I must say I'm perpetually annoyed by the defenses of evolution that carefully note that while evolution is a theory and not a fact it's just because scientists mean something different by theory than non-scientists. I don't mind the idea behind it - it's good that people are out there explaining scientific concepts. The problem I have is that evolution is a fact. It's a fact (or more accurately it's a bunch of facts and a fact, since facts can work that way) that is explained by the Theory of Evolution (and that is why the theory of evolution is the theory of evolution and not something else).
Nothing but confusion can result in being careless with our terms....#: Posted by Dr Pretorius on 03/20 at 04:46 PM -
Plus, we just do it again and again. It's like watching snow fall on a warm day - I don't see it sticking.
I mean, very well written, definitely one of the better versions I've seen, but . . . .
-Dan S. -
never, ever refer to Intelligent Design creationism as a theory.
That's very important advice. Idiots calling the renamed creationism a theory, and evolution a theory, is a strategy. Don't let them get away with this.#: Posted by on 03/20 at 05:12 PM -
As a theortician, I've been meaning to blog about the different meanings of "theory." By my count there are atleast three different usages of "theory:" 1) colloquial, 2) scientific singular, and 3) scientific mass. The differences between the last two, whose names I really haven't set upon yet, can be seen in the difference between the phrases "the theory of evolution" and "evolutionary theory." The former refers the explaination for evolution, whereas the latter refers to the body of mathmematical/statistical/computational research in evolutionary biology.
#: Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on 03/20 at 05:17 PM
-
Dr Pretorius: Can you define 'fact' for me? I think facts stem from observation, from which one generalizes theory. This would place evolution outside the scope of facts, for no one lives long enough to observe that process
(though maybe a reincarnating creationist could make some useful observations
).
#: Posted by on 03/20 at 05:37 PM -
So why don't we just adopt the old term "law" for evolutionary theory. I know Charles, Boyle, Ohm, Fourier, Fick et al. used the term for phenomenological relationships, but evolutionary theory is more phenomenal and logical. Richard Dawkins in particular would be pleased to have one called Darwin's Law of Natural Selection and another Darwin's Law of Sexual Selection (along with Kimura's Law of Neutral Drift etc., there are so many conbributors to evolutionary theory that deserve their own laws). The fact that these laws are constantly modified with new data is in line with Einstein modifying Newton's Law of Gravitation, even though we use Newton's Law for anything important like designing airplanes.
Terminology does change in science. I still hold that the only singular "Data" is the android in Startrek, Next Generation, but it seems like I am now the only one. So if terminology is preventing us from communicating with the public, then we need to face the problem.#: Posted by on 03/20 at 05:53 PM -
So why don't we just adopt the old term "law" for evolutionary theory.
Because evolution is a theory, not a law. Laws are universally applicable within certain scientific frameworks like electromagnetism, thermodynamics, Newtonian dymanics, etc. Biology isn't that easy to tame. - These sorts of cultural skirmishes are always predicated on who commands the language in the public domain. So far, the ID/creationist crowd has been successful in defining the terms on this issue. I think we’d do much better strategically if we started thinking about this in cultural rather than scientific terms. The ID/creationist folks continually keep us off balance by characterizing “the controversy” as scientific while at the same time utilizing cultural themes and rhetoric as their primary weapons. This is not a scientific issue, as we all know, and it should not be treated as such.
-
Dr Pretorius: Can you define 'fact' for me? I think facts stem from observation, from which one generalizes theory. This would place evolution outside the scope of facts, for no one lives long enough to observe that process...
Well, first of as far as I know it has been observed, repeatedly. Secondly, I'm not at all sure what you mean by "facts stem from observation" - what are you observing if not, well, facts?
I understand that we might say "I come to know this fact on the basis of such and such observations", but it's important to keep in mind that that's just shorthand for saything something like "I come to know this fact on the basis of the following facts which I have observed to be true".#: Posted by Dr Pretorius on 03/20 at 06:31 PM - I've hammered away at this very misuse of the word "theory" again and again. We need to keep hammering at it. In fact, every scientist who has a blog should link to the article. I plan on doing it now.
-
"I come to know this fact on the basis of the following facts which I have observed to be true"
I would replace 'this fact' in your sentence with 'this theory'. Examples of fact would be: 'My cat gave birth to kittens yesterday', or 'Last week, three mean-looking orcs used my copy of the origin of species as toilet paper'. That would lead, after repeated observations, to the theory that all kittens are born from cats, and that orcs don't like evolutionary theory.
what are you observing if not, well, facts?
Do you mean that all observations are facts? The senses are easily tricked into observing things that are not there (as in the Necker cube, or others visual illusions). But maybe visual illusions are a seperate class of fact? Also, observations mediated by technology pose a problem of their own: it is possible to visualize atoms as if they were some sort of touchable items, light and shade and all, but from theory we know that these properties don't hold on a quantum scale.#: Posted by on 03/20 at 07:17 PM -
I would replace 'this fact' in your sentence with 'this theory'.
You're welcome to do so, but that would be an entirely different sort of thing. We do also come to know theories in the same way, certainly, and that is the sort of thing scientists do. However, "My car is not where I parked it" (which I could come to know by means of observing an empty space(and hence coming to know the following fact:"There is an empty space in front of me.") is something I'd be hesitant to call a theory. Theories explain facts, but that doesn't mean anything we come to know via inferring from facts is a theory.
Do you mean that all observations are facts?
Nope. You can't infer "Everything I observe is a fact" from "I observe facts". At the most you could infer that I observe putative facts, which may or may not be actual facts. (Given a suitable definition of fact that excludes false ones - one could just as easily claim that in cases where we go wrong we're observing false facts, I suppose, but that would strike me as suggesting a rather more complicated story than is necessary.)#: Posted by Dr Pretorius on 03/20 at 07:29 PM -
Ben,
that is just an ad-hoc rationalization on what 17th, 18th and some 19th century scientists did. They found phenomena and called them laws, simply because they were looking for natural laws. These scientists, as brilliant as they were (and far more intelligent than me), had a certain paradigm of science. Almost all of these "laws" have been superceeded by "theories" because they are not universally applicable. However, given the reverence we hold for "laws," we may be able to use this term to convey more strongly the strength of evolutionary theory.#: Posted by on 03/20 at 07:30 PM -
That seems me to be a useful distinction: the process of generalization from multiple observations that leads to theory (as in my example), and the causal reasoning that leads you to from the observation that there is an empty space in front of you to the conclusion that your car is not where you parked it. I still think that this places evolution in the realm of theory, not fact.
I'd still like a definition of 'fact', since we now have at least putative and actual facts, and maybe false facts, something unnecessary if we'd stick to 'observation' instead of 'fact'.
BTW It's getting late in the Netherlands but if you'd like, I'll be glad to continue this discussion tomorrow.
Best regards, Ewout#: Posted by on 03/20 at 08:52 PM -
that is just an ad-hoc rationalization on what 17th, 18th and some 19th century scientists did.
No, it's a dissociation of the universally accepted differences between the definitions of "scientific theory" and "scientific law". Laws are universally applicable within the framework which they are able to defined because the conditions can also be defined. Pythagoras was able to derive universal laws according to the defined properties of Euclidian geometry. Charles, Avogadro, Fick, Boyle, etc, were all able to derive universal laws according to the defined properties of ideal gases. Newton was able to derive a universal gravitation law according to the defined properties of Newtonian dynamics (and which is still applicable within the larger framework of general relativity). Maxwell created electromagnetic theory, and so his laws are universally applicable within that framework. Ohm's law applies universally within cicuit theory. The list goes on. - And if anyone was unable to automatically assume that the word is supposed to be "circuit", you have no business being here.
-
"I think we’d do much better strategically if we started thinking about this in cultural rather than scientific terms. "
Hear, hear! If we only argue this scientifically I fear we will do an honorable and enlightened job of getting ourselves creamed.
Also sociological & political terms .. . -
I'd argue that it doesn't even meet the standards to warrant calling it a hypothesis.
That's a good point, actually. I've been calling it an hypothesis all along, but now that I think about it, it certainly ain't falsifiable.
How about... the fable of Intelligent Design? -
ID is used most often as an objection to evolution, so why not call it that?
"The Intelligent Design Objection."
It shifts the debate back to your framework.#: Posted by on 03/20 at 11:28 PM -
"The Doctrine of Intelligent Design" would be better. "Doctrine" is more fitting and doesn't have the mocking tone of "fable", which would just be outright rejected. It expresses the unfalsifiability of ID and carries the connotation of religious origins. Also it sounds more dignified and thus would lull casual proponents of ID into accepting its usage. Plus, the slogan "ID is just a doctrine" would look great on stickers pasted into the covers of Of Pandas & People.
Of course, I prefer "the doctrine of Dembskiism"... but, little steps.#: Posted by on 03/20 at 11:37 PM -
"Objection" lends it a ring of credibility. They might actually approve of it. I agree that "fable" has connotations. I may have been subconsciously drawn to it by the notion of talking animals.
The allegory of Intelligent Design? Posited by a dunce of Creationists? -
Doctrine is good insofar as it suggests that creationism is ideological, as in the doctrine of Marxism.
As for laws, Einstein's Theory of Relativity is universally applicable in its own framework, or indeed in any macroscopic non-singular framework.#: Posted by on 03/21 at 12:18 AM - Yeah, and relativity overarches many laws, including gravitation, light-speed constancy, Newtonian motion, etc. The theories explain the behavior of phenomena. The laws are the behavior.
-
The fact of natural selection is easily demonstrated by such phenomena as the evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria (an example recently used in a PBS program on evolution.)
The idea that facts are the bricks used to construct the edifice of a scientific theory is worth emphasizing, as is the point that Newton's "law" of gravitation is no more than a theory which has required modification. Nevertheless, we are entitled to advertise that evolution is a commonly observed fact.#: Posted by on 03/21 at 02:25 AM -
For a pack of Evilutionists, you don't seem to really get Applied Memetics (surprising since our Dark Prince of Evilution, Dawkins, discovered the meme). Whenever discussions like this pop up here, I always get a babe-in-the-woods vibe from you guys.
Using words like "fable" and "allegory" (much less "dunce") may make you feel good taking a jab at creationists, but it will only backfire if used in public as it makes you sound pissy and insulting, allowing the creationists to play the "we are serious searchers of truth, but those Evolutionists are just engaging in childish name calling" card. (Remember, these people are by and large Fungelical-variety Christians, so they are very skilled at striking martyr poses.)
Language is a weapon and the other side knows this. Terms like "Intelligent Design", "teach the controversy", "Cultural Renewal", "fath-based", etc. didn't just evolve of their own accord, they were intelligently designed and specifically created (sometimes by actual, honest-to-goodness professional memeticists, if you saw the work of Frank Luntz on PBS's documentary The Persuaders). The terms they use (at least at the level of the Discovery Institute, unsophisticated Internet cranks notwithstanding) are not designed to make themselves feel smug or just insult the other side, but to change the way the undecided or ignorant public thinks about a subject, to their political advantage, through nearly subconscious emotional appeals and connotations. It may be deceptive and unethical, but these people are purposefully methodical about it in a way I think a lot of you don't fully grasp.
And the thing is: what they are doing works and it's helping them make lots more progress than they should be making based on actual merit alone.
Simply complaining about their memetic tactics doesn't work, because they will just ignore you and keep plugging away with the same terms, confident in the knowledge that it will have the effect they want anyway. Your complaints and explanations, no matter how clear and convincing, will just become repetitive static that the audience will soon enough tune out. How many years have we been saying "theory doesn't mean that in science", yet here we are still dealing with people basing entire arguments on "Evolution is just a theory"? It isn't working.
If you are going to attack their memeticisms, the best way is to exactly mirror what they do: if Evolution is Darwinism, then Intelligent Design is Dembskiism; if evolution is Just A Theory, then ID is Just A Doctrine; if a List of 160 Scientists that Doubt Darwin is a convincing argument, then all the more so a List of 500 Scientists Named Steve that Don't Doubt Darwin.
This will have two effects:
1) It will annoy and distract them, especially with persistant use. Every time you do it it forces them to interrupt their Gish Galloping and quote mining to complain about your behavior or try to correct you. The alternative would be for them to let it slide, but that would allow you to manipulate the audience exactly as they are trying to do and they don't want that.
2) When they do complain, they will have to explain why what you are doing is wrong. This exposes their own use of the same tactics, undermining them and giving you an opening to discuss how they are being manipulative (and pose the question of why they need to be manipulative if there's any actual substance to ID).
And this part is important: You should be as forthright as possible about why you are doing it. You are mimicking an unhanded tactic of the other side to force a discussion of that tactic and show why it is manipulative and unimportant to the issue at hand. Not only does this keep you smelling clean, but it makes it more difficult for the other side to make it just about you since your motive is out in the open and necessarily involves their behavior.
(A corollary of this is you should never use the tactic in ways that they don't, otherwise you are simply being like them, not criticising them. And only use it after they start it; if you are dealing with someone who never uses "Darwinism", then never use "Dembskiism". The point is to sabotage this nonsense, not contribute to it.)#: Posted by on 03/21 at 03:05 AM -
Using words like "fable" and "allegory" (much less "dunce") may make you feel good taking a jab at creationists
Doesn't really make me feel anything. As I've said in another thread, this isn't a Senate hearing. It's a science blog and we're just a bunch of geeks talking shop. The "dunce" was an allusion to a previous entry regarding collective nouns. Frankly, I find the whole issue to be little more than an abstract slice of absurdist Americana to keep me entertained. If you want me to start taking it all seriously and resorting to poker-faced PR posturing, then you'll have to look elsewhere. -
At the risk of getting entangled in complications, as if I were denying the obvious, biological evolution is a fact, in the sense that, since the 18th century, a large body of empirical evidence has been accumulated that species have undergone fundamental transformations and extinctions. But Darwinism or evolution by natural selection is neither a fact, nor a theory. It is rather the basic explanatory paradigm of biological science, from which hosts of theories and hypotheses are derived and subjected to empirical testing. But that means that it amounts to a kind of "synthetic a priori", that is, the starting point rather than the product of empirical investigation. (Compare the thesis of gradualism or non-catastrophism with which Lyell and his predecessors established the science of geology, borrowing "the constant action of forces" from Newton, but applying the notion distinctively.) This is not to deny that the gathering and discovery of empirical facts provide justification for the basic paradigm, nor that such facts react back upon its theoretical concepts and further refine or transform them. And there is plenty of room within the ample Darwinian paradigm for reasoned discussion and debate concerning the weighting and effects of the components of the evolutionary process, including the proposal, as discussed by Prof. Myers just the other day, of ancillary mechanisms to natural selection, ranging from genetic drift and contingencies- (asteroids!)- to structural developmental constraints or the self-organized properties and structures of the material processes on which living organisms are built. But the fact remains that, since consensus on it was achieved in the early 20th century, evolution through mutation, adaption and differential reproduction has been the main explanatory driver of the development of biological science. And for all that it owes to the wealth and talent of the naturalist observations of Darwin and Wallace, the thinking through of their implications, drawing on the disparate resources of their intellectual environment, to the rational idea of natural selection was their main achievement. The point here is that Darwinism has a rational, as well as an empirical, warrant: namely, the identification and demarcation of a domain of phenomena, in this case, living processes, linked together with a canon of material explanation. However, that just is the stumbling-block for advaocates of "Creation science", since they want to reject the rational productivity of empirical research in favor of what amounts to a priori nullity, as if to reverse the historical differentiation of science from metaphysics. But arguing with such people on their own ground by pointing to the masses of empirical evidence to support the theory of evolution is bootless, precisely because it misses the rational delimitation of domains that makes for the productivity of empirical research as a limited rather than totalizing enterprise. Rather I think that the attacks of "creationists" should be countered with a two-pronged approach: 1) to make the rationally thought-thru and warranted basis of scientific research explicit precisely on the basis of its acceptance of limits, and 2) to analyse and address the resistance that many people, not just religious fundamentalists, feel toward Darwinian evolution, which I think boils down to the sense that that it nullifies human purposiveness, as if that were dependent on being pre-inscribed on the (projection of a) pre-established harmony of a metaphysical order of the world, rather than hanging on human responsibility.
#: Posted by on 03/21 at 04:48 AM
-
Frankly, I find the whole issue to be little more than an abstract slice of absurdist Americana to keep me entertained
And when I say that, I don't mean to impugn those of you on the right side of the issue, but rather to reinforce the contention that this is a silly and ephemeral issue limited to the US via unique idiosyncrasies of the culture, and which will be scoffed at in decades to come. -
Ben,
Sadly creationism and IDCism aren't simply absurdist Americana. We Brits have government funded schools (by public/private partnership schemes with businesses/trusts etc) in which creationism a taught as science. These aren't private religious schools, but mainstream comprehensive schools, the kind that the vast majority of the country attend. Frankly, although you Yanks have the greater number of creationists and the most vocal religious nutters (you terrible young,loud upstart nation you!) we have comparitively small numbers of insidious and thoroughly British hypocrisy based religious nutters.
I agree with you however about this being a current cultural idiosyncracy that will eventually die a death, but it will only do so if we fight fire with particularly flame retardant chemicals! I.e. we demonstrate clearly that the creation/IDCists have no scientific leg to stand on (already done, but perhaps socially unappealing), we demonstrate the potential consequences of adhering to creationist style "science" (more socially appealing), and we engage these guys in such a way that we chow that the cultural clash is NOT coming from the science "side", but from the creationist "side".
However, I think we have to be careful not to fall into the trap of the "THEM vs US" style wranglings that typify politics at the moment and are whipped up by the media to satisfy the public desire for fights. As it stands too many people erroneously believe that this conflict is one between "them godless atheistic scientists" and "us god fearing simple folk who don't use long words". If we accidentally end up as presenting (or appearing to present) this as a conflict of ideologies, then I think we will win at too high a cost, i.e. the increased loss of public reasoning ability. This should be presented as what it is: the struggle of some literalist religious groups against reality.
Although, that being said,I REALLY like some of jpf's ideas in constructive use of memetics! So perhaps I am wrong about the potential cost/benefits of restorting to the kind of anti-intellectual soundbite sloganism that the creationists use.#: Posted by on 03/21 at 05:44 AM -
This should be presented as what it is: the struggle of some literalist religious groups against reality. Considering the relative forces of science vs. religion in a democracy, frontal confrontation should be avoided. A bit of controversy is not completely negative, it could help gather public support for basic research in biology. "We need more funds for further research" is a proven line in science, even if in this case is blatantly dishonest. Or is it?
#: Posted by on 03/21 at 08:00 AM
-
jpf,
Take a gander at post #9. I think buridan beat you to the punch.
And the "us" vs. "them" distinction applies unequivocally.#: Posted by on 03/21 at 08:08 AM -
Great post.
As for ID, I think "assumption" would be a nice substitute for "theory."
"Scientifically irrelevant assumption" might be even better. -
I'm currently trying to decide whether to participate in a public event in my area. The local conservative Christian campus forum (Veritas) is hosting Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross, and they are looking for a "skeptical scholar" panel. I was not willing to accept their original idea (where the panelists critiqued the "theory of intelligent design", since there isn't one). However, they would be willing to have two equal time presentations, so scientists would at least not have to buy into the claim that there is any theory there to critique. I have participated in ID debates here (related to the ongoing Ohio school curriculum events), so I know much of what to expect. I'm *not* a biologist, however (astrophysics), so I can work the scientific method side of things and understand some of the biological issues at the level of an informed layperson. For this to work I'd need a capable biologist who is familiar with such debates. Any advice for a person to contact in central Ohio would be most welcome.
The virtue of getting involved is that it gives the possibility of exposing a (mostly hostile) audience to a different point of view, while the drawback is that it is playing on their ground (in more ways than one). If you're advocating a boycott: what alternative do you propose? Ignoring them does not seem wise.
Marc#: Posted by on 03/21 at 01:03 PM - My experience with such debates is that they’re highly staged events. The audience is essentially aligned on one side or the other. The representative speakers preach to their respective choirs. They’re almost always dominated by creationist types because they’re almost always sponsored by campus religious groups. Such events are disingenuous – honest debate is not the objective here. They only serve as ploys for gaining membership and exposure by the sponsoring religious groups. By participating, you further their religious agenda on campus both directly and indirectly.
-
Buridan, I think that it is important to participate in these staged event, in fact in all events, because absense is interpreted as victory (for them). Just showing up and demonstrating that scientists are likeable and friendly, is enough. I am convinced that the battle is on the political level, nothing to do with science, so act like a politician who never says anything substancial, but does so convincingly.
#: Posted by on 03/22 at 02:36 AM
-
Presence simply legitimates the whole endeavor. It places scientists along side quacks and provides creditability where it doesn't belong. It’s a platform for religionists to get their message out at the expense of science. These events are orchestrated by campus religious groups to recruit members – it’s a setup.
It’s the same tactic they use when holding events on “sex” – the flyers have “Sex” boldly displayed in the title and usually something about “would you like to know more about sex…” with the sponsor in 8 point font at the bottom of the flyer. Students know better and catch on to these things rather quickly, and so these groups continually change their tactics in an effort to keep up.
It’s the same rationale for why groups such as Campus Crusade for Christ changed their name to “Quest.”
It’s the same old stealth politics that the religious right have been using for years. Most people see these games for what they are, dishonest and deceptive. Why any faculty member would participate in such a farce is beyond me. -
The problem that I have with ignoring them is that the events will happen in any case. The only difference will be that they'll claim that the scientists are too frightened to show up, and the audience will only hear the creationist side.
Pretending that they don't exist will not make them go away.
I do agree that there are some setups that are so biased that it is best to avoid them....and that anyone going into them had best know that the best scientific case is not always the one that does best in a debate format, especially when one side is not always constrained by accuracy and honesty.#: Posted by on 03/22 at 12:09 PM -
Not necessarily. It's difficult to debate without an opponent. But even if they do hold some version of the event, there's no reason for them to suggest that scientists are too frightened to show up. A simple and polite thank you but no thank you is enough.
They won't go away in any event, and engaging them in debate will certainly ensure they stick around. Again, their agenda is not what they purport it to be. Their typical modus operandi is to place members in the audience with leading questions and the fact that their message is heard is victory enough for them.
bottom line: in order for this movement to survive, it needs the attention generated by such debates, discussions, or whatever you wish to called it. It seems to me that we contribute to their survival by elevating this issue as something deserving of serious consideration because scientists find it worthy to address in these types of forums