A few years ago, I was driving back exhausted from a rock climbing trip in the mountains. My buddy Bryan Fong, was bored and feeling a little punchy. When he gets like this, he tends to bring up politically sensitive topics and starts looking for buttons to press.
In this case, he honed in on the evolution “debate” in the US. He’s a geologist by training and has no problems with evolution. But like I said, he was feeling punchy. He pointed out whether we believe/understand/agree with evolution has very little effect on the real world. In fact, the only ones who care are self-righteous know-it-alls like me (I am paraphrasing – the exact words were lost in my blinding rage).
“Are you stupid?” I remember saying and then sputtering a lot of vague crap about “young impressionable minds,” “competitiveness in the world,” and maybe even “higher truth.”
Essentially the same stuff that Bill Nye said in his debate with Ken Hamm, which has now been discussed far more than it was actually watched. But here’s the thing – and I can’t believe I’m saying this – on one key point, Hamm is kinda right. For most of us, it really doesn’t matter what we think. Do you need to understand evolutionary biology to be a computer programmer? Must you grasp natural selection to sell car insurance? For that matter, do you really need to believe the world is round or that the sun is the center of the solar system to be a good florist or a trader on the stock market?
Or even a doctor for that matter? Yes, I could imagine a perfectly capable creationist podiatrist (though he/she would have had to worked hard to ignore certain glaring facts). In fact, there are only a select number of professions where your stance on evolution has anything to do with your work.
Granted, in those jobs (ie. biotech research, laboratory work, and anything to do with radiocarbon dating) you must understand that the world is more than 7,000 years old to have even a reasonable clue what you are doing. And if not, well, you probably suck at your job. But outside of that, it really doesn’t matter what Americans think when it comes to human origins.
“But Erik,” Mr. Nye says, “we need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future [and] we need engineers that can build stuff – solve problems.”
Do we though? We need scientifically enthusiastic voters, sure. We may even want scientifically literate lawmakers (ha, good luck). But do our voters need to understand the laws of thermodynamics or general relativity? As long as we have the best colleges in the world, the answer is no. We can just continue happily importing excellent researchers from countries that don’t have a problem with evolution.
And let’s be honest, we are losing far more intellectual potential to terrible public schools in our inner cities than we are to creationism. If we were truly concerned about maintaining our prestige in innovation and technology, would we be pissing away all of those young minds to gangs and prison?
So, Bryan Fong, I apologize. You were right. As long as we keep producing/importing molecular biologists, evolutionary biologists, and geneticists, the rest of us don’t really have to do much more than tune in for the debate when we’re bored.
So if the evolution/creation debate isn’t about the future of our country, what is it about? It’s entertainment. For the average person who tunes into the evolution debate (hell, toss in climate change too), it’s little more than a football game. Perhaps you’ve chosen a side to root for, perhaps you are just hoping to see a little bloodshed or dazzling (mental) athleticism. But be honest. How different is watching the evolution debate (because, omg, why are those creationists so oblivious?) than watching American Idol (because, omg, Sam Woolf just has no business still being on the show).
You watch, you groan and cheer, then you turn off the TV and go about your life. Those in the sciences (and hangers-on like me) have this idea that all humans are seeking truth – real truth – in all facets in their life. And certainly most scientists do; we’re curious that way. But it’s probably not a high priority for the average person. The average person is just interested in the spectacle and supporting their team.
This leads me to a simple conclusion and a potential change in strategy. We need to stop trying to win these arguments based on evidence as if this was a scientific debate. This is a circus, go get your lion-taming hat. The claims of creationism, climate-denial, astrology and all the other pseudosciences out there are ridiculous. If you are a scientist, don’t waste your time with any of this. Go cure cancer or study bisexual drunk fruit flies. Important stuff.
For those of us science communicators (and anyone who reads this blog, down deep, is a science communicator), we need to get better at playing the game. We need to ditch Bill Nye, who’s nerdy-know-it-all vibe irritates the average person. It’s like going court with Screech in Saved by The Bell or J.D. in Scrubs as your lawyer. Or maybe Kenneth on 30 Rock. I mean, we all love Kenneth, but nobody wants to be Kenneth. No, we want to be Jack or Liz. We wanna be Zach Morris, Turk, or Elliot (and for some reason I can’t explain, Dr. Cox).
We need to stop trying to be right all the time and try to just be cool. Accept that this is not a logical argument winnable by facts. We need to be less Bill Nye and more Bill Clinton. Say what you like about Bubba, the guy knew how to make nerdy cool. And let’s not discount Bush II, who got to lead the free world simply because people wanted to have a drink with him.
After all, the very future of our civilization depends on it.
Except, I mean, not really.
Photo Credit: Shutterstock … and others
You lump climate denial in with creationism and astrology in the name of science? Are you crazy? The true science behind “climate denial” is so much stronger and genuine than the global warming claims, there is no comparison. Your article was entertaining, but you missed the point. Before you casually blow off the truth, do some real research. You are being duped, sir.
Wow. I would almost agree with you. It is good to be cool – and Mythbusters has done more to promote STEM in recent years than The Magic Schoolbus. But plenty of people use science in their every day lives. A good chef is a food scientist, and thermodynamics and Maillard reactions matter to her every day. Farmers need to understand evolution and climate change to cope with breeding livestock and sowing crops. Insurers need to understand science – and you can bet they’re worried about climate. To coin a phrase, the “lack of faith in science”, endemic to North American life, is behind the current anti-vax movement affecting herd immunity. Sorry, not believing in measles doesn’t make them go away. By all means, be cool. But don’t dismiss the importance of understanding how things work, even for us little people.
I’ve also had this conversation. I waffle. Because while you don’t need to understand science to run a business, there is inherent danger to living in a world where people equate technology with magic. Also, Creationists make a lot of noise, some of which impacts funding of research. So a loud, ignorant segment of the populace does have the power to dumb down the nation, especially when you considre that they are conrolling what’s in the K-12 textbooks. So I think we need BOTH the Bill Nyes and the Neil deGrasse Tysons. Especially since people who don’t believe in Evolution are the same people who don’t believe in climate change. Give them enough rope and there won’t be any lions left to tame. If nothing else, I like Nye for the SANITY CHECK, b/c most of the people I work with are climate change deniers. Even when I tap out and choose not to engage, listening to them is exhausting. So how about more of BOTH?
Yeah, the anti-vaxxer thing and the anti-GMO thing is where my argument might run out of steam. One could argue those issues are more than just entertainment for the average person. Still, you have to ask yourself, if you truly believed the world was flat, would it really change you life all that much? Assuming you are not Neil deGrasse Tyson.
It’s a provocative position, but ultimately wrong, dead wrong. It’s not important that people ‘believe’ in evolution. It’s important that they understand that you need real evidence to support a claim, any claim. Otherwise they might as well just buy the magic beans, give their money to charlatans and elect the most charismatic liar. Sure all that crap happens, but the goal is to make it happen less. The wedge being driven between kids and evolution is part of a larger campaign to consumate the marriage of church and state. And that will have knock on effects for how society works including its funding priorities. There are forces at work that aim to marginalize those of us who love intellectual freedom. You need to think a bit harder about this and set your friend straight.
The anti-GMO, “Organic” claims, “global warming,” and “climate change” claims are all non-science nonsense. There is so little CO2 in air it is officially ignored by physics. Look in any reference dealing with “air” or “the atmosphere. These are all frauds for money and power. Bill Mc Kibbons has become a multi-millionaire with his BS books. To wit:
CO2 is a “trace gas” in air, insignificant by definition. It absorbs 1/7th as much IR, heat energy, from sunlight as water vapor which has 188 times as many molecules capturing 1200 times as much heat making 99.9% of all “global warming.” CO2 does only 0.1% of it. For this we should destroy our economy?
The Medieval Warming from 800 AD to 1300 AD Micheal Mann erased to make his “hockey stick” was several degrees warmer than anything “global warmers” fear. It was 500 years of great abundance for the world.
The Vostock Ice Core data analysis show CO2 increases follow temperature increases by 800 years 19 times in 450,000 years. That makes temperature change cause and CO2 change effect; not the other way around.
Carbon combustion generates 80% of our energy. Control and taxing of carbon would give the elected ruling class more power and money than anything since the Magna Carta of 1215 AD.
Most scientists and science educators work for tax supported institutions eager to help government raise more money for them. And, they love being seen as “saving the planet.”
[edited for length]
Interesting point about the church and state thing. Also provocative. Yet, I think your comment is based on the idea that most people value evidence for it’s own sake. I’m not sure that’s true. Certainly they like it if it supports their existing ideas. But it seems far more important to people that they belong to a group. Evidence-driven people need to acknowledge that we are losing this debate on the national stage. And it has nothing to do with evidence. We need a better clubhouse.
Uncouple the various issues. Selling evolution, climate change, vaccines, GME, and STEM in general should not be an all or nothing proposisiton. I know many climate change realists offended at the verbals attacks on personal matters of their faith. A lot of educated people can stand with you on the geologic record, human impact on climate, and the imperative of public health considerations, but when concerns about the neurotoxic effects of pesticides on farm workers, the degradation of our water table from agricultural runoff, loss of species diversity from herbicides and pesticides, ie, a desire for food produce with organic rather than industrial inputs, is derided by science people as immature fantasies……it looks like you have drunk the kool aid of your job prospects.