|
|
Thursday, September 01, 2005
|
|
| |
I've been meaning to do this for some time...I wanted to mention the resource that helped me start blogging, because it is most wonderful and everyone who wants to blog but has not a clue (as was the case for Zuska) should use it. It's a book called Essential Blogging by Cory Doctorow (coeditor of BoingBoing), Rael Dornfest, J. Scott Johnson, Shelly Powers, Benjamin Trott, and Mena G. Trott. All of these coauthors have blogs that are so beautifully designed it just makes me wanna weep. Please, you just can't compare Zuska to the creators of Movable Type, for cryin' out loud. Goddess of Science, yes. Goddess of Blogging, no.
Anyway, the book will take you by the hand and walk with you step by step through setting up your blog and get you going on all the basics. It will take you from the "wha...?...blog...huh?" stage to the "oh wow! I've figured out how to add categories to my home page!" stage. And then you, too, can lose many happy hours blogging away.
10:18:48 PM 
|
|
The Chronicle of Higher Education sponsored a colloquy online on the subject of the Intelligent Design movement. Proponents of Intelligent Design may not have felt very welcome, given that the title was "Unintelligent Designs on Science." The guest was James Trefil, professor of physics at George Mason University. The debate as a whole covered a lot of familiar ground but had some interesting moments. Professor Trefil defined ID thus:
I guess I would say it [ID] is a theory driven by a belief. As I said before, if you read the main ID people carefully, they are really trying to put out scientific ideas. The existence of irreducible complexity, for example, is a perfectly good hypothesis, and it is testable. Of course, when it is tested it fails, so it turns out to be bad science. The motivation of ID people is something else. They are pretty up front about wanting to put God (or at least their God) back into the curriculum.
A good summary. Trefil's take on whyscientists are not as persuasive as ID proponents:
Scientists in this country, with a few notable exceptions, have never been very good at dealing with the public. Our training just doesn't make us good debaters. Couple this to the fact that most of the push for ID is coming at the level of local school boards, where scientists tend to be thin on the ground, and you have the makings of a bad situation. I think the motivation for ID is, for most people, a sincerely held religious belief--again, something that scientific training doesn't really equip us to confront.
These problems trump the ease with which ID's arguments can be refuted.
The dismal level of scientific literacy for the average American public is also a problem. Try to explain why some ID claim is wrong, and you have to go into such detail...eyes glaze over...people remember how much they hated their high school science class/science teacher...how they just didn't get it then...and "who is this arrogant know-it-all spouting all this crap I don't understand?"...and finally "you know, why NOT teach the debate?"
Whereas, the ID proponents don't have to explain. They just say "some things in nature are so incredibly complex they could not occur by chance. There must have been an intelligent designer who was responsible for them. If you found a watch in a field, you'd know there was a watchmaker." And people say, "oh my God, that is so beautiful! And so true! The human body is a marvel of creation! I don't see why my kids can't learn about this theory as well. Why are we telling our kids they came from monkeys?" And they vote for school board members who think like they do. These are not, usually, scientists.
Oh, the scientists are paying quite a price these days for their disengagement with the general public.
Kinda makes all those cranky men in academia who give women a hard time for wanting to participate in outreach progams look bad, now, doesn't it? And those women who waste all that time doing silly outreach work that's useless for tenure...looks like they're doing something good for the whole community, eh? Engaging kids and parents in science activities, raising interest in/awareness of science - who knew it was such important work after all?
8:56:39 PM
|
|
Bobby Henderson has found a way around the 5 reasons why scientists are ineffectual in the fight against the ID movement.
Mr. Henderson is the individual who had a divine vision of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who, he says, created all that we see. Mr. Henderson is concerned that children may be learning only one version of Intelligent Design, and he would like the Kansas School Board to consider teaching his theory as well.
I think this is reasonable. If we are to open up the science classrooms to one theory of Intelligent Design, why not to all theories of Intelligent Design? What was that they said...oh yes, "teach the debate". I so totally agree. I absolutely believe our nation's children should be learning about Pastafarianism along with other theories of Intelligent Design. Mr. Henderson's proposal for devoting one-third classtime to Intelligent Design, one-third to Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one-third to "logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence" seems just about right.
Mr. Henderson has threatened to sue the Kansas School Board - which recently gave a preliminary thumbs up to teaching alternative theories like ID alongside evolution - unless they also give time to his theory. Apparently he is serious.
Now THIS is the kind of strategy that scientists should be pursuing. The AAAS should help this gentleman pursue his court case. At the very least some scientist who made a ton of money on some patented something or other should help fund his efforts. If you want to defend science classrooms, it will take creative efforts like this one.
If, on the other hand, you would just like to make some money, you can pick up some extra cash by proving that Jesus is not the son of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The good folks at Boingboing.net will give you $1 million if you can do so (originally $250,000, the award for convincing proof has been increased). See their original post on the whole issue. Learn there about the schism from Pastafarianism, SPAM (Spaghetti and Pulsar Activating Meatballs).
7:22:21 PM
|
|
Okay, so I was asked: why are scientists so inept at confronting and responding to the ID movement? The reasons are several.
- They are not centrally organized. The ID movement is.
- They are not well-funded for their effort. The ID movement is.
- They are not savvy PR artists. The ID movement leaders are.
- They are not in agreement on what strategy should be used. The ID movement is.
- They do not clearly understand the terms of the fight. The ID movement leaders do.
Example: Some scientists say don't engage proponents of ID in debate, it only lends "legitimacy" to their claims. This comes across to the average person, especially those for whom religion is very important, as arrogant and elitist. "Why won't they even talk to us? What makes them so high and mighty?" Bad PR (#3), no agreement on strategy, as other scientists do engage in the debate (#4), and completely misunderstanding what is going on (#5) - because it's not about lending "them" legitimacy. As I've said, they already have it in the hearts and minds of their followers.
There is no central organization of scientists leading the fight against the ID movement. Sure, the AAAS has made statements and taken stands - uh, like saying "we refuse to be involved in the debate". (Yeah, I am so sure that went a long way to winning the hearts and minds of the evangelical Christian contingent.) But it's not like they have a huge pot of money and a well-oiled national machinery in place to put forward a centrally agreed-upon agenda, if there was one.
Here is another example of where I think the scientists are just not quite getting it. As I've said before, the ID movement leaders do not want to destroy science. They want to control it, and direct its uses for their own purposes and to what they see are the best uses in a society constructed according to their moral values.
Later on I'll get into why debunking evolution is the cornerstone of that effort. But for now my point is, you cannot win a battle if you aren't even showing up at the right battlefield. And scientists are fighting on the wrong battlefields. This is not a fight against creationism. This is not a fight against "people who want to destroy science." The scientists who think that the ID movement is "playing on our field" are sadly mistaken. Yes, it's incredibly easy for any scientist to scientifically rebut what any ID proponent argues. And just how many evangelical Christians have been moved by those arguments?
6:35:08 PM
|
|
|
|
© Copyright
2005
Suzanne E. Franks.
Last update:
10/3/2005; 2:08:10 PM.
|
|
| September 2005 |
| Sun |
Mon |
Tue |
Wed |
Thu |
Fri |
Sat |
| |
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
| 4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
| 11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
| 18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
| 25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
|
| Aug Oct |
|
